01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 1

Transcription

1 MEETING DATE: January 8, 2014 PREPARED BY: Mike Strong, Associate Planner DEPT. DIRECTOR: Jeff Murphy DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building CITY MANAGER: Gus Vina SUBJECT: Consideration of a two-councilmember subcommittee to provide direction and input on the proposed permit application for the Interstate-5 Widening Project and affirmation of staff s determination that a separate City initiated Local Coastal Program Amendment should not be pursued. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that a subcommittee be created that will be chaired by two Councilmembers, who will meet on an ad-hoc basis. Staff also recommends that the City not develop a separate amendment to its Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the proposed Interstate-5 Widening Project for the reasons specified in this staff report. STRATEGIC PLAN: This effort is consistent with the Transportation Focus Area of the City s Strategic Plan; specifically, key goals which support mass transit that accommodates more people with minimal impact on the community as well as continued planning, management and maintenance of local transportation infrastructure with an emphasis on roads that give adequate levels of service. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS: Costs associated with the subcommittee and review of the permit application is covered under the Department s existing budget. BACKGROUND: A. Project Description SANDAG is a regional planning agency governed by a board of directors comprising 19 member agency governments. Caltrans is responsible for building and managing state highway and freeway projects. Together, SANDAG and Caltrans have prepared a North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan (PWP) & Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program (TREP) to implement a phased, 30-year program of regionally significant public works projects to meet the mobility vision of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 1

2 The proposed Highway Project offers a transportation system comprised of three primary focus areas: Interstate 5 express lanes project; Rail and transit enhancements; and, Environmental protection and coastal improvements. The improvements primarily add two Express Lanes in each direction on Interstate 5 from La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego to Harbor Drive in Oceanside to increase highway capacity and seek to achieve reliable, congestion-free travel options throughout the corridor. Caltrans staff has made informational presentations before the Council on April 10, 2013 and November 13, Caltrans staff also attended a strategic planning session on October 30, B. Permitting Process Described Since much of the transportation facilities are located within the Coastal Zone, ordinarily, development activities requiring coastal development permits are regulated by the Coastal Commission and/or by local governments through coastal development processes. Since the Interstate-5 Widening Project spans multiple jurisdictions, each with varying land use requirements, the Coastal Act allows agencies (in this case SANDAG and Caltrans) to process a PWP/TREP (a master plan ) through the Coastal Commission. If the PWP/TREP requires amendments to a local jurisdictions LCP (which is necessary for this project), the Coastal Act allows the agencies to process their own LCPA as a third party beneficiary. Once the Coastal Commission approves a PWP, no coastal development permit is required if the development is consistent with the PWP. Instead, a Notice of Impending Development to the Coastal Commission and other interested persons is provided. The Coastal Commission then reviews the Notice for consistency to the PWP. If the Coastal Commission determines it to be consistent, then development may proceed within thirty (30) days. C. Review Process and Recent Milestones The PWP/TREP is a work in progress of more than ten (10) years of collaboration and public input about how to comprehensively improve the corridor. Many changes have occurred over the past ten (10) years with respect to project design including lagoon bridge redesign, grading and retaining wall changes, direct access ramp redesign at Manchester, surface road improvements, and other significant TREP enhancements. While project redesign has resulted into many positive changes, other issues remain as documented in City correspondences (Attachments 1-3). The following is a list of major project milestones to date: I-5 NCC Project Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS Released for Public Comment (August 12). Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS Community Meeting (September 19, 2012 at the Encinitas Community and Senior Center) PWP/TREP Re-Released (March 13) 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 2

3 PWP/TREP Community Meeting and Public Hearing (April 4, 2013 in Carlsbad) Final EIR/EIS made available to the public (November 13). SANDAG/Caltrans submittal to Coastal Commission and consideration of thirdparty LCP amendment process (November 15, 2013) ANALYSIS: Concurring determination for third-party request approved (December 9, 2013) Third-party Encinitas LCPA request formally received (December 17, 2013). A. City Initiated Local Coastal Program Amendment On November 15, 2013, SANDAG and Caltrans formally submitted their PWP/TREP application to the Coastal Commission and on December 17, 2013, SANDAG and Caltrans submitted a third-party LCPA to the City (refer to Attachment 4). An option available under the Coastal Act is for the City to process its own LCPA to address inconsistencies and demonstrate local support for the PWP/TREP. Under the Act, the City has 90-days from the date of Caltrans/SANDAG s application submittal to process and submit its own version of the amendment. This is not an approach being pursued by City staff. Amendments to a certified LCPA require public input, environmental analysis (likely an EIR), and tribal consultation, all of which requires much more than the 90-days that is statutorily provided. Staff suspects that this provision of the Coastal Act was not amended to keep up with the evolution of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Further, there is no guarantee or requirement that the Coastal Commission approve the City s LCPA in-lieu of the SANDAG and Caltrans application. As such, City staff finds that the best course of action is to work with Caltrans/SANDAG on their project application in effort to work out any differences and issues. It has been mutually agreed upon by Coastal Commission staff and SANDAG/Caltrans that the PWP/TREP and LCPA will be considered on the same public hearing date, which is likely to occur in Mid B. PWP/TREP Application Review Possible Subcommittee Up until this point, City staff has individually reviewed and commented on the various components of the PWP/TREP (i.e. PWP, EIR/EIS, proposed LCP amendments, etc.). The City has up to the 2014 public hearing date(s) to provide comments on the complete permit package (LCPA, PWP/TREP and EIR/EIS) to ensure adverse impacts are mitigated and that improvements are more nearly compatible with the small-town, coastal character of the community. City staff is also partnering with other impacted coastal cities to identify common concerns and possible solutions. Since the process will move fast, as a way to move through complicated design or policy issues, it may make sense for the Council to form a subcommittee. Subcommittee meetings would be called on an ad-hoc basis in order to provide status updates, to discuss things of particular interest, or help resolve details and trade-offs. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: The project is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The action being considered by the City Council is an administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment. This action entails the development of a subcommittee to review the permit 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 3

4 application and associated studies and reports for the Interstate-5 Widening Project as proposed by Caltrans and SANDAG. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 City of Encinitas 4/29/2013 Response Comments Attachment 2 November 6, 2013 Informal Comments Attachment 3 November 15, 2013 Informal Comments Attachment 4 North Coast Corridor PWP Overlay Draft LCPA 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 4

5 Attachment 1 City of Encinitas 4/29/2013 Response Comments 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 5

6 . City of Encinitas Comment Responses The following is provided in response to the City's PWP/TREP comment letter submitted on 4/29/13. Please also see the accompanying edits made in track changes to each section ofthe PWP/TREP. Comment #1. It is noted that LCP amendments for affected cqrridor communities wil be proposed concurrent with the PWP/TREP process. That is, in general, the California Coastal Commission wil review and consider changes in city policies to address inconsistencies and resolve specific conflcts as it relates to the PWP/TREP Project. City. staff has previously raised the point that proposed LCP amendments shoùld not change, modify, or alter the standard of review for other projects within the City. The subject and matter of submittal dissociation should be formalized and reflected somewhere in the PWP/TREP. Comment #2. Caltrans and the City will enter into a Freeway/Improvement Maintenance Agreement to clarify the divisions of maintenance responsibility as to, or portions of, separation structures, City streets, landscape areas, etc. The timing of the agreement should be considered by the Coastal Commission, in consultation with the City of Encinitas, as part of the PWP/TREP and the submittal or issuance for any Notice of Impending Development (NOID); An updated Draft LCP consistency analysis table, along with the Draft LUP Amendment text and general City of Encinitas Overlay map was sent on 9/11/13 for City review and comment. Coastal Commission staff recently provided their comments and suggested edits to the Draft LCP Amendment package on 10/17/13, which has been refined with legal support to ensure that LCP Amendments would not change, modify or alter the standard of review for other pr.ojects outside of the narrowly defined Overlay zone for PWP/TREP improvements located within the City. Additionally, wording consistent with the above has been added to the PWP/TREP and Draft LUP Amendment text clarifying the LCP Amendment is limited to highway and related community and resource enhancement projects located within City's Overlay. Please refer to Section 5.7 discussion regarding cooperative city maintenance agreements. Implementing community enhancement projects would depend on cooperation between members of the community, City officials, and the Caltrans design team. Pursuant to a cooperative agreement between Caltrans and the affected cities, Caltrans would construct the community enhancement projects throughoutthe 1-5 corridor as part of highway construction, and maintenance agreements would be organized with each city, allowing future maintenanceto become the responsibilty ofthe local jurisdiction. PWP/TREP Strategies and IMs also require that NOID submittals for community enhancement projects include the cooperative maintenance agreement with the affected city, as determined during preconsultation with the city during design and preparation of NOID submittals. 1 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 6 i

7 Comment # City of Encinitas. Page 2~18. Population data (64,600 people) should be reconciled to reflect 2010 U.S. Census counts (59,518). Comment #4. 3A.1.1 Travel Demand and Growth. Page 3A-4. In terms of general discussion of traffic and its impacts, the City is currently in the development of the North Coast Highway 101 Streetscape Project. With this project there is a potential impact of diversion to the i-s corridor. This section of the PWP/TREP may want to consider the localized impact oftraffic and its impacts that originate from different land use and transportation projects. Chapter 3A of the PWP/TREP discusses the spillover to local streets (please also refer to Section , 1-5 Highway Corridor Impact Assessment, on page ), but this potential impact is not addressed. Comment # Rail and Transit Vision. Page The proposed double~tracking of the LOSSAN rail line, totaling 14 miles of new track, will allow the COASTER to operate within 20- minute peak-period frequencies and potentially increase ridership from 6,000 to 12,900 passengers a day, with capacity to accommodate up to 35,100 riders. Although new NCC capacity for rail services results in better interregional travel times and more options for travelers, how are the potential impacts to local streets and increased noise from trains addressed as part of the PWP/TREP. Comment # Local Streets and Neighborhood Enhancements. Page In an April 26, to City staff, Coastal The 2010 population estimates in the PWP came from the Series 12 model, which turned out to be about 2-8% different than the final Census 2010 numbers for each city. However, the accompanying projections for 2040 are based on these Series 12 estimates. Therefore, because no 2040 projections were made based on the Census 2010 data, it is recommended to leave the 2010 populations as-is. The intent of this table is to demonstrate the order of magnitude. of population changes from and Updating all projections to Census 2010data, even if possible, would have little to no effect on this order-of-magnitude estimation. Discussion added to Section 3A The PWP/TREP does not replace the formal environmental review process. In fact, some environmental impacts such as noise which are an important environmental and community concern are not part ofthe coastal regulatory process and therefore not included in the PWP/TREP. Given the PWP/TREP program-level of detail available to evaluate potential coastal resource impacts from rail improvement projects, it is anticipated federal consistency review may need to be conducted ina phased manner for proposed rail improvements. As rail projects are further developed, additional federal consistency review would be conducted, as necessary, for the proposed PWP!TREP rail improvements that require federal permits, federal authorization, and/or federal funding. Discussion added to Section /08/2014 Item #10A Page 7

8 Commission staff indicated that Coast Highway 101 Streetscape Project improvements really need to be considered along with the PWP /TREP. The 101 Streetscape Project is a concept plan for beautification, landscape, pedestrian, circulation, traffic management (north bound lane reduction) and parking improvements for an approximately. 2.5-mile stretch of North Coast Highway 101 (A Street to La Costa Avenue). Even though the 101 Streetscape Project is permitted separately from the PWP/TREP, City staff concurs that there seems to be a need to discuss what local agencies are doing to achieve mobility system improvements. Section might be an appropriate section to discuss local eìctions to improve mobilty, coastal access, and quality of life in the corridor; further aiding the underlying objectives of the corridor's vision. The.coast Highway 101 streetscape improvements should also be noted on Figure 38-3 on page 3B-43 and other supporting documentation since they are permitted separately from the PWP/TREP. Comment # Local Streets and Neighborhood Enhancements. Page The second paragraph refers to funding made available by way of the TransNet Ordinance. Is this statement referring to the Highway portion of the program or the Local Streets and Roads program? Comment # Implementing the Comprehensive Vision. Page This section notes that planning and beginning construction of three new pedestrian crossings ofthe LOSSAN rail corridor (at EI Portal Street, Santa Fe Drive, and Montgomery Avenue). Please note that only the Santa Fe Drive location has been funded. Fùnding for the remaining pedestrian crossings has not been allocated. TheSanta Fe grade-separated pedestrian crossing was completed in February As a generalcomment on the PWP/TREP, it can be confusing to determine how the new EI Portal Street, Santa Fe Drive, and. Montgomery Avenue pedestrian crossings relate to the processing of the PWP /TREP, since they have. been permitted separately from the PWP/TREP. For example, all four crossings are noted in Figure 2, Proposed PWP!TREPlmprovements, on page Xl, which implies that it is part of the PWP/TREP This statement is in reference to the Highway portion of thetransnet Ordinance. Clarification has been inserted into the document. The "Overview" Figure 2 has been updated for consistency with all other parts of the PWP/TREP, which correctly identify only the Hillcrest Drive/Grandview Street undercrossing as being subject to the PWP/TREP. As noted in this comment, the have been permitted understood they are not all three other pedestrian crossings separately,. although it is funded. 3 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 8 3

9 Project. Table 4-1, LOSSAN Rail Corridor Projects in the NCC, on Page 4-3, and Figure 4-2D, Planned Improvements, on Page 4-31, and Table 6-1, Preliminary Phasing Plan, on page 6-3, have a more limited scope of planned pedestrian improvements and only identifies the Hillcrest Drive/Grandview Street undercrossing. Comment # LOSSAN Rail Improvements, Double-Tracking. Page 4-2. The LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan and respective environmental reviews note roadway/rail grade separation at Chesterfield Avenue or Birmingham Drive for implementation of double- tracking. Such grade separation ofthe intersection is not mentioned. There are six roadways and two pedestrian crossings of the rail corridor in Encinitas. Only two of the six vehicular crossings are grade-separated with the remaining four vehicular crossings atgrade. Implementation of double-tracking over atgrade crossings along with increased train frequency will impede vehicle and pedestrian movement, increase GHG emissions with idling vehicles stopped at at-grade crossings, and will impose safety and noise related impacts. Proposed PWP/TREP improvements, call for completion of double-tracking along portions ofthe rail corridor through the City of Encinitas, including a 1.5 mile segment across the San Elijo Lagoon through an existing single tracked, at-grade crossing at Chesterfield Drive (CP Cardiff to CP Craven), 0.8 miles between CP Moonlight and CP Swami, and a 2.7 mile second main track through the northern portion of the City (CP Ponto to CP Moonlight). InEncinitas, the existing rail corridor abuts residential, commercial and industrial land uses and forms a barrier to pedestrians and to vehicular traffic at the at-grade crossings of major intersections, as does a parallel arterial and Coast Highway 101. The need for safe, legal pedestrian passage over the rail lines has been long-identified as a community need and necessary for safe coastal access. Legal pedestrian crossings over the rail lines are limited to sidewalks or pathways adjacent to existing vehicular crossings, the one atgrade pedestrian crossing at Encinitas Coaster Station and a newly constructed grade-separated pedestrian undercrossing at Santa Fe Drive. The Caltrans and SANDAG appreciated the opportunity to discuss these crossings with Mayor Barth, CouncilniemberSchaffer, and Gary Gallegos in September At that meeting, the team clearly understood that the EI Portal crossing isthe City's next priority now that the Santa Fe Crossing has been completed. The issues of limited transportation funding, regional priorities and the opportunity for new funding is an important discussion that needs to extend beyond the PWP/TREP permitting process. It should be noted that since the crossings at EI Portal and Montgomery already have a coastal permit they are not technically within the PWP/TREP purview /08/2014 Item #10A Page 9

10 limited number of rail crossings acts as an obstacle to east-west movement resulting in uncontrolled pedestrian activity, trespassing of the rail lines to reach nearby coastal recreation areas, businesses, schools and residential areas. The City is supportive of projects to provide additional safe pedestrian crossings ofthe rail corridor noted in the PWP/TREP. In Leucadia, the rail separates a residential area to the east from major local shopping district and the coast to the west. City staff has concerns regarding the phasing ofthe Leucadia Boulevard grade~separation, and timing of improvements, as noted later in this comment letter. In Cardiff-by-the-Sea, the rail corridor separates the community from the ocean. Atgrade double-tracking in the existing corridor was eliminated from the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements EIR because it would compound these barriers and create additional safety issues with pedestrians and vehicle crossings (LOSSAN Rail Corridor Improvements, Final Program EIR/EIS, September 2007, page20-26). The environmental documentalso notes that rail improvements could create long-term noise impacts along the rail corridor from increased train operations. The FRA's Record of Decision states that existing noise impacts would be reduced or eliminated in sections of the corridor where tunnel options were implemented, or where existing at-grade crossings were grade-separated. Substantial noise decreases would occur at these locations by eliminating the need for warning horns and bells at crossings (LOSAAN proposed Rail Corridor Improvements, Record of Decision, US Dept. of Tronsportation, Federal Rail Administration, February 2009, page 17). Comment # :1.3 8ridge Replacement. Page 4-5. This section notes that bridges would need to be replaced in order to accommodate doubletracking; and many bridges have been in service for a long time and are in need ofreplacement or serious overhaul. At some point in the PWP/TREP process and Coastal Commissions' consideration of the project, the PWP/TREP Project team should document a seismic retrofit strategy and evaluate the impact of sea level rise andthen determine how this will impact the design of the bridges. It is. agreed that seismic and sealevel rise (SLR) impacts are an important design factor for evaluating existing and new structures. The issue of SLR is addressed in the updated Section 5.8 and accompanying updated Regional SLR Study which is an appendix to the PWP!TREP. 5 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 10 5

11 Comment # Encinitas 80ulevard Interchange. Page Environmental documentation for the Encinitas Boulevard Interchange Modification Project should have a 2013 timeframe versus Also, it should be noted that the design of the interchange improvements must be consistent with the scope of the environmental work. Comment # LOSSAN Crossings. Page This section should reference the Coastal Rail lias proposed in the City's Bikeway Master Trail Planll. It may also be appropriate to reference the current funding and construction status of the EI Portal Street, Santa Fe Drive, and Montgomery Avenue pedestrian crossings, as noted previously. Comment# Coastal Rail Trail. Page The initial stage of the rail trail through Encinitas is listed as from Birmingham Drive to Chesterfield Drive; approximately 1,200 feet of trail. SANDAG is currently the lead agency developing plans, specifications, and engineering for not this segment but the extension to D Street. The various tables identifying the rail trail segments should be modified to reflect this project. Comment # City of Encinitas. Page All improvements must meet the minimum specifications identified by local code (i.e. City's Bikeway Master Plan or Trails Master Plan). As a general comment, the division of maintenance responsibilty for the various enhancements should be clarified with appropriate Public Works, Engineering, Planning, and Parks and Recreation staff. If the City is. to assume maintenance responsibilty for these improvements, then all plans for the location, design and development of trail improvements shall be reviewed by the local jurisdiction to ensure continued interagency coordination and that all design specifications have been met. Comment # City of Encinltasi EN#28. Page 446. Within the PWP/TREP document the relocated terminus of the MacKinnon Avenue Bridge is shown as a culde-sac. It is acknowledged that this issue wil be resolved and addressed in the Final PWP/TREP. (Please also refer to page 5.3- This section now is Edits made to change 2012 to 2013 and to reference that interchange design wil be consistent with the environmental.project scope. Now Section Referen~e to city's Bikeway Master Plan made. Not necessary to repeat funding status of other crossings in this section. The initial stageof the Coastal Rail Trail in the City of Encinitas is Chesterfield Drive to G Street. Section identifies all the Coastal Rail Trail segments in the City of Encinitas. The initial segment that will be constructed generally includes the two projects identified in that section as CP Swami to Birmingham Drive and Birmingham Drive to Chesterfield. Caltrans and SANDAG acknowledge that improvement will meet local codes and plans wil be reviewed by the local jurisdiction. Comment noted /08/2014 Item #10A Page 11

12 19.) Comment # City of Encinitasi EN#58. Page City staff has previously expressed concerns regarding the location of this specific bicycle/pedestrian link. It is acknowledged that this issue will be resolved and addressed in the Final PWP/TREP. (Please also refer to page ) Comment # Highway Corridor Impact Assessment. Page Caltrans and SANDAG produced two travel forecasts for 2030 and 2040 horizon years, both of which project significant growth in 1-5 travel demand. On Page 5.1-9, the 1-5 No Build daily VMT percentage change from existing ranges from a 20.1% to 29.6%. However, the NCC Project scenario generates only 4.0% to 5.9% increase. In addition to this increasing rate of travel demand change, on page the PWP/TREP contributes a 10% to 15% reduction in VMT on EI Camino Real and Pacific Coast Highway 101 as a result of the NCC Project. While it is generally acknowledged that reduced traffic congestion on 1-5 would alleviate the pressure of local communities to address and accommodate IIcut-through" traffic on local arterials, the PWP/TREP does not disclose any assumptions that were utilzed to help validate the travel demand conclusions. The only source of planned improvement capacity assumptions, (i.e. double-tracking and increasing transit connections) are discussed on pages 3B-8, and Therein, it is worth noting that by 2020, the combined increase in passenger and freight locomotive rail miles in the corridor is projected to be 66% above 2005 levels (see page ) and asmany as 54 trains per day versus the 26 trains per day under existing conditions (page ), resulting in an increase in COASTER ridership from 6,000 to 12,900 passengers per day, with a capagity of 35,000. The footnote no. 89 provides some capacity information; however, expanding capacity of the LOSSAN rail corridor does not nearly explain the percentage change in VMT on Table and reduction ofvmtonlocal arterials. Comment # PWP/TREP Opportunities i Design DevelopmentStrategiesl and Policies/Implementation Measures. Page Caltrans Designers are currently coordinating the design ofthe North Coast Bike Trial with City Staff. The PWP/TREP only includes projects lead by Caltrans Or SANDAG. Consequently, while we agree the Pacific Coastal Highway 101 improvements are an important component ofthe transportation vision of the City, they are not included in the PWP/TREP. However, the 1-5 EIR/EIS does include an analysis of changes in traffic patterns that may be caused by 1-5. In general the project shifts volumes away from north-south parallel arterials like Pacific Coastal Highway 101 and EI Camino ReaL. Additionally, the 1-5 project services existing, planned or approved trips and does not create new trips. For these reasons it was concluded that the project did not negatively impact Pacific Coastal Highway 101 or EI Camino ReaL. Section 5.1 has been redrafted in its entirety to clarify the discussion of the relationship among the various metrics that influence GHG emissions. The 7 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 12 7

13 While it is imperative to assess the role that VHT has on energy use, it seems that mitigation policies should focus on VMT given that the Coastal Act, Section 30253, requires new development to minimize energy consumption and VMT. Staff recommends the following new implementation measure be added to this section: If vehicle hours traveled (VHT) is a valid way to assess vehicle energy consumption, it might be good to include a measure that ties to the improving east/west pedestrian/bicycle connectivity crossing the 1-5 Freeway and railroad. For example: ifthe transit schedule is to double in Coaster trains and increase to 20 minute headway in the. future (page ), east/west coastal access will be impacted on a local level, increasing VHT. This may in-turn push the desire for people to seek other ways to get to the coast, Le., walk or. bike, creating a greater importance of providing s~fe railroad crossings. The PWP/TREP states that while VMT and VHT can act as proxies for measuring vehicle consumption on the corridor, it is misleading to assess such the corridor level. This is reference to the 1-5 corridor as a subset versus the San Diego region as a whole. Would the new transportation and land use modeling tools be able to provide any meaningful results for ViyT/VHT associated with a single or small group of east/west crossings? Design and development strategies in this section also list minimizing grade changes in steep terrain areas. Is there a max grade or target grade level that should be achieved or not exceeded to sustain fuel consumption? Also, how does this particular strategy relate to others listed, such as archeological, community character, etc.? Are all design/development strategies treated equally? Comment # Impleme.ntation Measures. Page The following new implementation measure is recommended for this section: Pursuant to Page 3B-25, the presence of adequate parking facilities in coastal areas is an important variable that influences coastal access and supports recreational opportunities. Bicycle lockers/racks should be considered at all park and ride facilities or in locations to encourage their use as part of enhancing the overall transportation at focus of the section is on the highway and regional metrics and relationships among VMT, VHT, VHD, and emissions. The park and ride at the San Elijo multi use facilty will include bike lockers. The Caltrans Designers are currently coordinating the design of the North Coast Bike Trial with City Staff /08/2014 Item #10A Page 13

14 system and reducing reliance on the roadway/ highway network (supports the intent of Section 5.1), as well as enhancing coastal access (supports Section 5.3). Comment # PWP/TREP Opportunities Design Development Strategies 1 and Policies/Implementation Measures. Page The vision ofthe NCC Project (Page 3B-l), among other things, is to promote the mobility system improvement projects necessary to eliminate barriers and close gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian route network and improve nonmotorized local and recreational access to coastal resources. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the shoreline is one of the highest priorities of the Coastal Act. Page identifies gaps, barriers and other deficiencies in bicycle and pedestrian access routes at existing and planned crossings of the 1-5 highway and LOSSAN rail corridor. As noted previously, implementation of double-tracking over at-grade crossings along with increased train frequency will impede vehicle and pedestrian movement, increase GHGemissions with idling vehicles stopped at at~grade crossings, and wil impose safety and noise related impacts. The PWP/TREP ties the freeway expansion to related east-west connections (for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles). East-west coastal access improvements should also match transit service expansion. For example: if the transit schedule is to increase to 20 minute headway in the future, east-west coastal access wil be impacted on a local level. The timing of access improvements should match the increase in transit service expansion. The PWP/TREP notes the planned improvements to increase capacity and rail service in the Mid-term ( ); however, the Leucadia Boulevard grade-separation improvement is identified to be completed in the years Please note that the service expansion may also impact other crossings and rail improvements should be more closely spaced to reflect the mitigation of those impacts. The PWP/TREPshould address the phasing and timing of east-west pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle coastal access improvements to mitigate any local impact to coastal access based on projected 1 See response to comment 9, above. 9 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 14 9

15 LOSSAN rail corridor improvements. Comment # PWP/TREP Opportunities Design Development Strategies 1 and Policies/Implementation Measures. Page Leucadia Boulevard is noted as a highway crossing in the City of Carlsbad. Please change this from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Encinitas. Comment # PWP/TREP opportunitiesi Design Development Strategies i and Policies/Implementation Measures. Page There are a number of highway crossings listed in the City of Encinitas that are coordinated with adjacent community enhancèment projects. During the preliminary design of these projects, all plans for the location, design and development of community enhancements shall be reviewed by the local Jurisdiction to ensure continued interagency coordination -(and with those staff charged with evaluating those designs). Comment # Implementation Measures. Page Several new implementation measures are recomm-ended to address protection and enhancement of public access and recreational opportunities. Mitigation for temporary construction impacts to coastal access and recreation should be coordinated with the local agency to help address and detour program, traffic control plans, etc. All plans for the location, design and development oftrail improvements shall be reviewed by the local jurisdiction to ensure continued interagency coordination and that all design specifications are met. As new transit service expands, provide an analysis of potential impacts to east-west coastal access to address the potential impact associated with pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, bus service, and emergency response access. Should the analysis find substantial impacts to coastal access, 1 Revision made. Section has been revised to add a new IMs ( see 1M and 5.7.3) as follows: "Implementation Measure 5.7.2: Affected local jurisdiction(s) shall be provided the opportunity to participate in the review of final design plans for project-specific improvements located within their jurisdiction as part of future NOID submittals in accordance with the process and procedures specified in Chapter 6 of the PWP/TREP." "Implementation Measure 5.7.3: Early preconsultation with the CCC, and affected local jurisdictions upon request, shall occur at the earliest feasible time when an adequate level of design detail is available (generally at 30% Design) to provide for adequate review and comment periods for visual mitigation elements identified in Implementation Measure and pursuant to the adopted 1-5NCC Project Design Guidelines." See above response: /08/2014 Item #10A Page 15

16 appropriate mitigation shall be included in the project. All park design improvements for the Union Street Park shall meet the minimum specifications identified by local code. Caltrans shall consult with the appropriate Public Works, Engineering, Planning, and Parks and Recreation staff during the preliminary design of projects. Pursuant to Page 3B-25, the presence of adequate parking facilities in coastal areas is an important variable that influences coastal access and supports recreational opportunities to nearby beaches, lagoon trailheads, and other recreation areas. The PWP/TREP improvements include the identification of new and enhanced staging areas for bike and trail facilities throughout the corridor. Public access opportunities to recreation and open space areas should be supporteq by adequate support facilities. For example, offsite parking provisions may be needed to accommodate the parking demand for trail facilities at significant entry points (Le. San Elijo Lagoon area) or at the Union Street Park. In accordance with Coastal Act Section 30210, which addresses posting to encourage maximum access, a comprehensive park and trail sign program shall be applied for identifying new park areas, permitted uses, support facilities, etc. For example, signs provided at trail head locations, as determined necessary and appropriate, can provide information relative to the safe use or way-finding to encourage use of routes along the transportation corridor overlay. In carrying out the requirements of the Coastal Act, maximum access shall be conspicuously posted. Comment#24. 5Æ3.4 :Implementation Measures. Page Overall, thepwp/trep articulates a sensitivity and intent to address runoff quality and quantity controls consistent with mandated design standards; however, if the project is unable to meet stormwater treatment design standards, the City would like to make sure that staff is consulted for alternative or off-site treatment options. Therefore, the following implementation measures should be added. In NOIDsubmittals, and with cases where Caltrans wil work with the local jurisdiction in implementing appropriate BMPs within the jurisdiction of the local agency, where feasible and consistent with PWP/TREP policies, design/development strategies and implementation measures, after ensuring that the BMPscannot be placed within Caltrans right of way. treatment BMPs cannot be incorporated within 11 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 16 11

17 Caltrans right~of-way, Caltrans shall work with local jurisdictions to implement treatment BMPs within the local jurisdiction, if needed and where feasible. If treatment BMPs are determined infeasible pursuant to Implementation Measure 5.4.4, Caltrans shall work with the local jurisdiction in implementing appropriate BMPs downstream within the jurisdiction ofthe local agency, where feasible. Comment # PWP/TREP Agricultural Resources Impacts. Page The proposed mitigation fee program should addres's purchasing agricultural lands or improving agricultural lands within the coastal zone (emphasizing mitigation proximity to coastal zoned areas). Implementation should address remediation of hazardous materials in compliance with county, fe.deral and other applicable standards. This section should also address procedures to engage (communicate) the surrounding neighborhood from initial investigation/studies through the grading and remediation process. Comment # ,5.1 Local Coastal Program Consistency Analysis. Page The proposed highway improvements include a DAR at Manchester Avenue. The property is currently used as agricultural land has a Land Use designation of RR-2 (Rural Residential, 2 units per acre). Transportation type uses/parking lots are not allowed in this land use classification. Since it is included within the LCP overlay for the PWP, it appears that a modification to the LCP land use or implementation would be needed to use this property for a park and ride/dar purposes. In December 2012, proponents submitted an initiative petition to the City Clerk, entitled lithe Encinitas RightTo Vote Amendment", qualifying for a Special Municipal Election on June 18,2013. The ballot measure affects how land use designations/zoning amendments are made and how building height is measured in the City. The Initiative qualified for a June 18,2013 Special Municipal Election. If approved by the voters, a PWP/TREP land use change to a higher and use category (RR-2 to Transportation Corridor) wil require the affirmative vote of a majority of those Implementation Measure has been revised. to specify mitigation of agricultural impacts would occur in the coastal zone, and any required remediation activities would be completed in compliance with county, federal and other applicable standards for hazardous materials. 1M further specifies that, as part of the first tier of mitigation projects, public outreach would be implemented to engage the surrounding neighborhood(s) throughout the implementation process. The purpose ofthe proposed LCP amendment is to establish an overlay on properties directly affected by the NCC improvements which allows for the specific PWP/TREP projects to be constructed, operated and maintained as primary permitted uses on land included in the overlay. Accordingly, no separate land use or tone changes are necessary for purposes of coastal permitting. Caltrans/SANDAG have reviewed the question of the ballot measure with internal and coastal counsel and believe that it is not necessary for the. LCP amendment to be approved by the voters. There are several reasons for this, some of which are related to the nature ofthe third party initiated amendment process and the fact that the ballot measure affects local ordinance and has not been verified as part of the city's LCP. We would be happy to discuss this issue in more detail /08/2014 Item #10A Page 17

18 voting in the election approving the proposed change. Comment # Phased Project lmplementationi Page 6-2. This table lists the Hilcrest Drive/Grandview Street undercrossing as a phase project. This section does not identify the three other new pedestrian crossings of the LOSSAN rail corridor (at EI Portal Street, Santa Fe Drive, and Montgomery Avenue). A comment was made previously in that it can be confusing to determine how the new EI Portal Street, Santa Fe Drive, and Montgomery Avenue pedestrian crossings relate to the processing ofthe PWP/TREP, since they have been permitted separately from the PWP/TREP (see comments under Section 3B.3). In the Phase, the pedestrian improvements at Encinitas Boulevard are included (also permitted separately from the PWP/TREP) but planned interim improvements at Santa Fe Drive are not. As a general note, it is more. likely cost effective to implement the crossings and rail trail improvements when implementing PWP/TREP rail improvements (at the time of original construction). Not only wil this potentially diversify the funding of construction, it will help mitigate the impacts, balance rail and multi-modal improvements, and increase coastal access opportunities/benefits. Therefore, when identifying project phasing and implementation priorities ofthe PWP/TREP as guidance for rail improvements, the rail improvements should be more closely tied or spaced to reflect the phasing of the rail double-tracking. Ideally, this would include "all" LOSSAN rail crossings. Therefore, should the EI Portal Street, Santa Fe Drive (constructed February 2013), and Montgomery Avenue undercrossings be identified in the phased im plementation? Although the PWP/TREP Project is not subject to City of Encinitas Design Guidelines, the following help to provide some background and basis for commenting on the NCC Project Design Guidelines: Section 2.6.6: Retaining walls proposed along the boundary of the project shall be landscaped and/or constructed with quality materials. Section 3.2.3: Long, continuous slopes that have See response to comment 9, above. Thank you for providing the supporting City Design Guidelines policies for background and reference purposes. See responsesto specific Design Guidelines comments, below /08/2014 Item #10A Page I I' I!

19 long edges shall be avoided. Graded slopes shall be rounded and blended at the top and toe of the slope to create a more natural appearing slope. Section 3.2.7: Retaining walls faced with local stone or of earth-tone colored and textured concrete and plantable walls are highly encouraged to minimize visual impacts. Section : Permanent landscaping shall be installed as soon as practical during development activity. Section 7.3.1: Drought tolerant and native plant materials are encouraged. Section 7.3.2: An irrigation system should be installed for any landscape area to insure plantings are adequately watered. Section 7.3.3: Graded slopes are highly encouraged to be re-vegetated with native plants and plant mixes. Section 7.3.4: Landscaping design and installation should enhance site elements. Section 7.3.6: Landscaping design shall provide effecting screening of retaining walls to reduce negative visual impacts. Section :Landscaping should be used to appropriately soften the visual impact of large walls. Section : Walls shall avoid monotony by the use of recesses, planting materials and architectural features to visually break up their linear appearance. Section 7.7.1: Plant materials should be selected for their effectiveness of erosion control, drought tolerance and visual blending. Section 7.7.2: Slope plant selection and location should consider neighbor's views. Section 7.7.3: Disturbed and graded slopes should be planted with varied plant species and irregular plant spacing to achieve a natural appearance. Trees shall be planted along contour lines in undulating groups to create grove effects to reinforce the natural undulating appearance of the slope a nd to soften the line of the graded slnpes. Comment #28. It may be helpful to specify the PWP/TREP Design Guidelines amendment process, consideration of changes thereto, or procedure of review for consistency findings later the planning, Please refer to the Design Guidelines, Design Goals and Objectives / Create a living Document section which states: lias with any large scale highway project, the 1-5 North Coast Corridor Project is /08/2014 Item #10A Page 19

20 engineering, and/or design process. expected to be implemented in multiple phases over the course of many years. The purpose of this document is to define and refine the mitigation requirements ofthe 1-5 North Coast Visual Impact Assessment. It is not intended in any way to be the final word, but instead, a work in progress. It is written to be the basis for shareholder comment, and wil be amended accordingly. During the design process, shareholder interaction will continue, guidelines will become more and more specific, loèallv oriented design details will be added, and a design palette of specific features and products will be developed." The Design Guidelines will be revised as follows: Enhancement Policy Guidance Caltrans has developed policy guidance to incorporate Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) that consider the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist. CSS is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resourêes, while maintaining safety and mobility. 15 Caltrans provides policy guidance on incorporating local jurisdiction input on the use of enhanced features under "Community Identification" and "Transportation Art" in the Project Development Procedures ManuaL. Design of freeway project features wil be done in consultation with affected local agencies with the understanding that Caltrans policy and procedures regarding issues such as safety, operations, maintenance and cost wil prevail. We want to work with each city to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both agencies Chapter 6 Amendment ofpwp/trep Project Àuthorizations section revised toaddress potential future changes to Design Guidelines. Section , new 1M added; see 1M and5.7.3 as follows: "Implementation Measure 5.7.2: Affected 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 20 15

21 i Comment#29. The depiction of any structures replacement at the 1-5 Encinitas Boulevard Interchange should be in conformance with environmental documentation for the Encinitas Boulevard Interchange Modification Project. local jurisdiction(s) shall be provided the opportunity to participate in the review of final design plans for project-specific improvements located within their jurisdiction as part of future NOID submittals in accordance with the process and procedures specified in Chapter 6 ofthe PWP/TREP." "Imp.lementation Measure 5.7.3: Early pre~consultation with the CCC, and affected local jurisdictions upon request, shall occur at the earliest feasible time when an adequate level of design detail is available (generally at 30% Design) to provide for adequate review and comment periods for visual mitigation elements identified in Implementation Measure and pursuant to the adopted 1-5 NCC Project Design Guidelines." Design of freeway project features will be done in consultation with affected local agencies with the understanding that Caltrans policy and procedures regarding issues such as safety, operations, maintenance and cost wil prevail. The Design Guidelines have identified several potential candidates for gateway interchanges. The Guidelines do not specifically depict the bridge treatment at Encinitas Blvd. Ilustrations in the Design Guideline are conceptual only. The specific treatment of each structure wil be determined in the design phase in consultation with the local jurisdiction. We want to work with each city to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both agencies,. Comment#30. The City of Encinitas has several key LCP policies that relate to the Design Guidelines and the overall PWP/TREP Project. For example, development is discouraged when it infringes on scenic views and vistas within the 1-5 Corridor (LU-9.5); and where it is necessary to construct retaining or noise-attenuating walls along the 1-5 Corridor, they should be constructed with natural-appearing materials and generously landscaped (LU-9.6). The corridor context, as detailed on page 8 of the PWP/TREP Design See also new PWP/TREP IMs and as noted in response to comment 28 above, which provide for additional City coordination on project details during design and in preparation of projectspecific NOID submittals. The Design Guidelines support the City's desire to use undulated grading, curvilinear retaining walls and naturalized landscaping to preserve the scenic qualities of the corridor. Walls wil incorporate quality materials; earth coiored and textured concrete; and use recesses and architectural features to avoid visual monotony. Sculpted shotcrete walls would be above and beyond standard Caltrans maintenance levels. Therefore, maintenance of specialty painted shotcrete surfaces would require a City Maintenance /08/2014 Item #10A Page 21

22 Guidelines, acknowledges that the 1-5 corridor rhythm, of mesa top to lagoon to mesa top, creates a highly unique traveling experience; and any future freeway construction should be designed to ensure the visual quality of the corridor honors this unique environment of light, openness, and views. Since the existing 1-5 corridor is linked by a series of valleys, crests, and canyons that roll gently across its path, efforts should be made to preserve the visual characteristics ofthese features and enhance the coastal corridor's surrounding environs. As stated in the City's previous PWP/TREP/EIS/EIR comment letters, retaining walls may/would result in adverse conflicts within the City's General Plan policies that are intended to preserve the scenic qualities ofthe view corridor. Given the high importance of preserving the scenic public views within the City's southern gateway, City staff believes that all feasible mitigation measures should be considered in the EIS/EIR and PWP/TREP's Design Guidelines. This includes the use of sculpted shotcretefor aesthetic treatment of rètaining walls proposed within natural slope areas since this type of treatment would provide a geologic finish on retaining walls that simulates the natural characteristics of the corridor. It is important for the PWP/TREP to comprehensively evaluate the feasibility of undulated grading, tiered and curvilinear retaining walls, sculpted shotcrete for retaining walls, naturalized landscaping, etc. in areas of natural topography. Comment #31. Design Porametersi Page 5. Design Guidelines documentation notes that enhancements wil only be incorporated into the 1-5 NCC Project if local agencies accept responsibility for maintaining them in perpetuity. Enhancements or. enhanced features are appurtenances or aesthetic features that are not contained in the Caltrans Standard Plans or Design Manuals. Asan example, freeway landscaping that requires higher than standard levels.of maintenance is considered to be an enhancement. Maintenance responsibilties must be clarified through the final development of thepwp/trep. Agreement. Please refer to PWP/TREP Section 5.7 Implementation Measures which identify a suite of design options to be further evaluated in coordination with the City during design and preparation of the project-specific NOID. We want to work with each city to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both agencies~ Maintenance responsibilities cannot be identified or clarified by the PWP/TREP because specific enhancemeiitswill be identified during the future design phase. The design would result from collaboration between members of the community, City officials, and the Caltrans design team. The enhancements or enhanced features would be agreed to by the affected cities at that time. Please refer to Section 5.7 discussion regarding cooperative city maintenance agreements. Pursuant toa cooperative agreement between Caltrans and the affected cities, Calträns would construct the community enhancement projects 17 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 22 17

23 Comment #32. Page 15. Terraced Retaining walls over 20 feet shall (vs. should) be divided into separate structures sufficiently offset from one another to create a planting area between the two. Staff recommends reducing the wall height requirement for offsetting to 15 feet. Comment #33. Noise Wall Planting Pockets & Noise Wall Landscape 8uffers. Page 15. Clarify if the "S-foot wide planting area" referenced under Noise Wall Planting Pockets discussionis consistent with the "planting pocket" noted on the diagram directly below it. In addition, clearly indicate the agency responsible for maintaining the "community buffer planting" areas shown on the same diagram and on the diagram on Page 16 under Noise Wall Landscape Buffers. Comment #34. Transparent Noise Walls. Page 16. throughout the I 5 corridor as part of highway construction, and maintenance agreements would be organized with each city, allowing future maintenance to become the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. PWP/TREP Strategies andlms also require that NOID submittals include the cooperative maintenance agreement with the affected city, as determined during preconsultation with the city during design and preparation of NOID submittals. We want to work with each city to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both agencies~ It is not feasible to require all walls over 20 feet tall to be divided into separate structures dueto site and space constraints. Careful consideration would be given to each wall location to minimize footprint/right of way/ ESA impacts.and consider views to natural features such as bluffs, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, wetland and riparian areas and steep topography. The final location and height of each wall would be reviewed to balance the conflicting objectives to minimize visual impacts to natural features and to avoid a tunnel effect that would result by wall placement at the shoulder with no landscape buffer. Each wall would incorporate recesses and protruding architectural features to avoid visual monotony. Revised Design Guidelines state: "The 5-foot wide planting area between the back of the barrier and the face of the noise wall is a planting pocket. Community buffer plantings within Caltrans R/W would be maintained by Caltrans." Section IV Maintenance wil be amended to include the following: Community buffer plantings within Caltrans R/W would be maintained by Caltrans and consist of native plantings with minimal maintenançe. Nonnative vines would be planted with concurrence of the CCC and where reasonable for maintenance and irrigation access. Community buffer landscaping could be considered as a candidate for enhancei; landscape treatment with the affected city. Proposed Design Guideline revisions, Page 16: /08/2014 Item #10A Page 23 I I i i I

24 Establish specific criteria for the translucent materials placed on top of noise walls. Criteria should include prevention of yellowing, fogging and cracking. Comment #35. Terrain Contoured Retaining Walls. Page 19. It is noted in the discussion under "Terrain Contoured Retaining Walls" that the layout of walls will consist of long radius curves, and the use oftangent sections (straight lines) will be avoided at all possible. Due to existing natural slopes and bluffs on the east side of the freeway and north of Manchester Avenue, it is critical to require contoured retaining walls in this area to mitigate significant visual impacts. Please indicate the feasibility of implementing contoured retaining walls in the City of Encinitas, specifically north of Manchester Avenue on the east side of the freeway. Comment #36. Community Gateways. Page 21. Main entrances to the City of Encinitas (on Manchester Avenue, northbound, and La Costa Avenue, southbound, should be considered "Significant City Gateways". These two entrances to Encinitas need special treatment within the. "Southern Bluff Theme Unit". This is extremely important not only to the City of Encinitas, but also to the region. The map only focuses on the bridge treatments but not on the retaining walls and other improvements within these areas. Provide more details of design elements and features within these areas including color and texture of shotcrete treatment of retaining and noisewalls. The City of Encinitas concurs with the 'Southern Bluff Theme" throughout the corridor with the In some cases, these walls need to be transparent to retain desirable views for private residences.. Transparent noise walls on private property could be used should residents accept them and agree to maintenance._translucent materials can be placed on top of noise walls to reduce their apparent height and create a greater sense of openness. Translucent materials should be placed above areas of potential vehicle impact, out of easy reach, and should consist of vandal-resistant materials. _Panel materials would be resistant to yellowing, fogging and cracking. For solid noise walls on Caltrans right of way, special treatments such as articulation or perforations with glass block insets can be used to improve the visual appearance of the wall. The use of undulated grading and curvilinear retaining walls are key components of the Design Guidelines. "Significant City Gateway" comment noted. Specific Gateway design details are not available at this time. Details will be developed during the future design phase. Please refer to comment 31 above. The specific design of each gateway feàture including height, size and color will be determined in consultation with the local agency and Resource Agencies during the design phase. In general, gateway features should be of low scale and visually unobtrusive while communicating the local character of the gateway. PWP/TREPIM added to ensure early consultationwith city and CCC staff regarding acceptable design elements a nd locations well in advanceof preparing NOID submittals. Please also i I I 19 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page i I

25 comment noted above regarding 'significant gateway'. Comment #37. Corridor Theme Units. Page 22. The 1-5 NCC Project proposes treatment to the entire corridor into three basic theme units. Details should be provided to the transitions between those areas. For example, how does 'Southern Bluff Theme' transition to the next theme along the corridor? Comment #38. Lagoon Bridge with Pedestrian Crossing. Page 31. Clearly identify what "nonstructural elements of pedestrian crossings" that would be maintained by the City of Encinitas. Comment #39. Gateway Undercrossing. Page 34. The City is unclear on the overall benefit of the vertical gateway features. The proposed design seems too expensive and prominent for a scenic visual corridor. Any 'gateway feature' for the City of Encinitas should be modest ('low key') and blend with the surrounding area. Comment #40. Gateway Undercrossing, Triple- Span Design. Page 34. The City recommends the single-span structure design at Encinitas Boulevard. For background, the City of Encinitas has spent the last 2s-plus months working on the preparation of the Project Summary Report (PSR)/PR - Environmental document for the 1-5 Encinitas Boulevard Interchange. This work is based on a Cooperative Agreement executed on February 8, 2011 with Caltrans. Prior to this work, again in cooperation with Caltrans, the City refer to Design Guidelines description of Gateway features and acknowledgement of City coordination for these features, including enhanced. landscape treatments, subject to maintenance agreements. Transition feature design details are not available at this time. Details will be developed during the future design phase. We look forward to working with each city to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both agencies. See response to comment 31, above. Specific nonstructural elements for pedestrian crossings (and all bridges) to be maintained by the City of Encinitas have not been identified at this time. The future cooperative city maintenance. agreement would identify maintenance responsibilties. We look forward to working with each city to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both agencies~ "Gateway Feature" comment noted. Details wil be developed during the future design phase. Please refer to comment 31 above. Please also refer to the Design Guidelines (Sept 2013) which state: lithe exhibit shown here ilustrates the use a of a vertical tower element. The specific design of each gateway feature including height, size and color will be determined in consultation with the local agency and Resource Agencies, as applicable, during the design phase. In general, gateway features should be of low scale and visually unobtrusive while communicating the local character of the gateway. The Design Guidelines have identified several potential candidates for gateway interchanges. The Guidelines do not specifically depict the bridge treatment at Encinitas Blvd. Illustrations in the Design Guideline are conceptual only. The specific treatment of each. structure wil be determined in the design phase in consultation with the local jurisdiction. We want to work with each city to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both agencies. In many instances, the width of the local street below the freeway including enhanced bike and pedestrian access i /08/2014 Item #10A Page 25

26 prepared a Project Summary Report that outlined the City's preferred interchange alternatives as art of the development of the 1-5 North Coast Corridor Project. Work on the PSR was completed in January As you can see, the City has spent a significant effort in both time and dollars to assúre Caltrans is informed of the City's preferred interchange geometries; In August of 2011, Caltrans was provided with a Draft PSR/PR for the I-S/Encinitas Boulevard Interchange. Included in this draft were Typical Cross Sections, Layouts, and an Advanced Planning Study for the proposed improvement to the interchange. All of this information has been reviewed by Caltrans and to my knowledge the issue of a two span bridge has not been suggested by Caltrans until the Draft 1-5 NCC PWP/TREP was presented to the City by Caltrans staff. Caltrans has determined that the "gateway" to the city is the Encinitas Boulevard Interchange and changed the structure type without informing City staff for input. This lack of coordination is disappointing considering that Caltrans has been made aware of the City's plans for this interchange back in August of Shown on page 34, the undercrossing gateway is illustrated to show a three-span undercrossing with tapered grading up to bridge abutment seats, creating a pedestrian friendly zone. While, the creating of pedestrian friendly zones facilitates pedestrian comfort arid safety, there are several reasons that the City is requesting a single-span bridge design. As noted in a separate comment letter, a two-span bridge was rejected early in the preparation ofthe Draft PSR/PR, as well as during the development of the PSR, and much ofthat reasoning is carried forward with the submittal of a three-span bridge concept, as follows: 1. There are safety concerns having concrete columns, along with concrete barrier to protect the columns, running down the sides of Encinitas Boulevard asthepiàcement of fixed objects within the dear recovery area and the need to protect them from approaching vehicles. The City would be responsible for the maintenance of the traffic safety improvements based on the current Freeway Maintenance Agreement. create a span that is too long for a standard single span structure. Due to this limitation, the twospan and three-span options depicted in the design guidelines provided alternatives that could be utilized to accommodate these wider widths. If during the design phase it is determined that a single span structure could span the entire width while accommodating all project features and meeting all safety standards then a single span structure could be used. In response to comments and input from various stakeholders, the latest design guidelines have been revised to remove the center column from the gateway bridge concepts. The structure aesthetics were also modified and an arched structure is no longer proposed. Please see the latest design guidelines for the latest concepts. These modifications should address many of the concerns the City has in regards to Gateway interchanges. Caltrans looks forward to working with the City on a final design concept for Encinitas Boulevard. In regards to maintenance concerns. Were feasible, a textured surface will be incorporated into vertical elements to deter graffiti. Details for maintenance resporisibilities will be discussed and agreed to during the design phase. A maintenance agreement will be executed prior to completing the design. The local jurisdiction is responsible for maintenance for any non-standard features. r 21 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page I I I i!

27 2. Encinitas Boulevard as planned wil be a tight diamond with back to back double left turn pockets and would most likely be adversely affected by a bridge design that is constricted with available right-of-way; and the analysis ofthose impacts in the PSR environmental document. Additional right-of-way wil be needed along the properties fronting Encinitas Boulevard on both sides of the freeway due to additional width (wider footprint) usually required. Since the intersections of Saxony Road, Calle Magdalena and Pacific Shores are located within a few hundred feet of the interchange, they will most likely be affected as well. This wil notbe the case on a single-span bridge design. 3. With a three-span bridge, columns, short walls or concrete barriers running along the sides of Encinitas Boulevard would be prime targets for graffiti taggers. This won't be the case on a singlespan bridge. 4. Caltrans has proposed that the Encinitas Boulevard Interchange be the gateway facility. The dual span arched structure depicted in the document will require significant additional span width over the individual spans to account for vertical clearance. This is especially true for the sidewalk area where the current ADA minimum vertical clearance requirement is 80 inches. There is also the issue of what would be proposed as a treatment for the area between the arches and the back of sidewalk. How would these areas be maintained and who would perform the maintenance? It is assumed that vertical elements would have to be added along the median and outside the sidewalk areas to limit the width of the proposed arch structures. How would these elements be treated to minimize graffiti and clear recovery area? The latest iteration of the Design Guidelines show two design alternatives and views of gateway from approach with 1) columns at front of sidewalk and 2) columns at back of sidewalk. Notwithstanding the comments contained herein, given the two three-span design options - a column at the back of sidewalk is the preferred treatment. The City has expended approximately $ /08/2014 Item #10A Page 27

28 millon to date of local funds in developing the PSR with a single-span bridge. This work was performed with Caltrans as a PARTNER (emphasis based on the Cooperative Agreement). Much of this work will be in vain if Caltrans determines that the bridge type will be modified. The term Partner is defined, within the Co-op, as" the relationship between these agencies to work together to achieve a mutually beneficial goal". It appears that the potential use of a multi span structure was done outside this definition as the 1-5 NCC Project Manager, as well as others, is also a member of the i-s/encinitas Boulevard Project Development Team. The angle of support Columns under the bridge as shown in the diagrams might conflict with the vertical design of the retaining walls along the freeway and (assumed) many of the freeway onramps/off-ramps and may be too much of a deviation from the 'Southern Bluff Theme'. We recommend that the design of the gateway structures be kept in the Design Guidelines for the public to review and comment. Comment #41. Page 38. Indicate what features above the bridge decks that are to be maintained by the City. Comment #42. Southern Bluff Overcrossing Details. Page 42. The City supports the "wave form" for the pedestrian overcrossings. It is understood that the City requested that the Mackinnon Avenue bridge to include 'planting barrier'. It seems appropriate to include the 'planting barrier' concept with the Birmingham Drive and Leucadia Boulevard bridges. In addition, Leucadia Boulevard has a very unique landscape palette and should continue across the bridge to further enhance the pedestrian experience. 23 Specific features to be maintained by the City have not been identified at this time. The future cooperative city maintenance agreement would identify maintenance responsibilities. Please refer to comment 31, above. MacKinnon has been identified as a candidate for a Community Enhancement Project by the community, City and Caltrans. The 'planting barrier' concept at Mackinnon Ave would be considered a project feature within the Enhancement Project. The planting barrier would require a Maintenance Agreement and a dedicated City of Encinitas irrigation system. Birmingham Dr and LeucadIa Blvd were not identified as Community Enhancement Projects. The planting barrier concept would require concurrence with Caltrans in order to be implemented. A Maintenance Agreement and a dedicated City of Encinitas irrigation system would be required. If Caltrans concurs to the planting barrier concept at Leucadia Blvd, then the extension of the Leucadia Blvd landscape palette would be considered a context sensitive solution. The use non-native plantings would require concurrence of 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 28 23

29 Comment #43. Walls. Page 45. The Design Guidelines should consider the importance ofthe treatments ofthe side ofthe retaining and noise walls adjacent to and faces the City's public rightof-way (Example: Piraeus, Orpheus and Devonshire). Similar treatment proposed on the freeway side for all noise and retaining walls should be proposed on the City right-of-way side. Landscaping (including vines) should also occur within these areas to minimize visual impacts of walls as viewed from City right-of-way. Comment #44. Walls. Page 45. Clearly identify/list enhance features to be maintained by the City. Comment #45. Urban Design and thè Pedestrian Realm. Page 56. Clearly identify/list enhance features to be maintained by the City. withthe Ccc. Walls that face the city public right-of-way would receive architectural treatment. Landscaping would occur on the city side ofthe wall in Caltrans right-of-way where feasible with consideration of space requirements, and irrigation and maintenance accessibility. Vine plantings are recommended as a visual avoidance measure; however the use of non-native vine plantings will require concurrence with the CCC. Please refer to PWP/TREP Section revisions to specify that "Landscaping plans should include only species native to Southern California such that the proposed planted areas will be compatible with surrounding natural and manmade areas. Please refer to PWP!TREP 1M Local Frontage Roads - In locations where highway widening brings traffic in close proximity to parallel local streets such as Ida Avenue in Solana Beach, Villa Cardiff Drive, Devonshire Drive, Orpheus Avenue, and Piraeus Street in Encinitas, Avenida Encinas in Carlsbad, and Brooks Street, Garfield Street, and Buena Street in Oceanside, landscape buffers shall be created between the highway and street, which may include elements such as street trees and shrubs, sidewalks, and solid screen walls with vines for access and graffiti contròi. Including some buffers may require local street widths to be adjusted. Implementing this measure is contingent on local agency approval and commitment to irrigate and maintain the landscape buffer in perpetuity. The use of non-native vines and street trees would require concurrence with the Ccc. Enhanced features have not been identified at this time. The future cooperative city maintenance agreement would identify maintenance responsibilities. See response to comment 31, above. Enhanced features have not been identified at this time. The future cooperative city maintenance agreement would identify maintenance responsibilties. See response to comment 31, above /08/2014 Item #10A Page 29

30 Comment #46. Landscape. Page 61. The landscaping should be drought tolerant/native landscaping. The a good mix of plant palette and design and placement should be in an informal manner such that it reflects a more natural appearance and provide more interest. On page 64, standard interchange landscape treatment is provided. Caltrans should coordinate with the City when evaluating site-specific landscape plans and aesthetic treatments (including interchanges, retaining walls, sound barriers, and grading of slopes). Please note that all landscaping treatments should follow the typical issue and/or minimum requirements ofthe City of Encinitas Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance in those areas within the jurisdiction. The PWP/TREP should also develop a planting plan that avoids all ecologically-damaging invasive plants as specified within the County of San Diego or Cal-IPC lists. Enhanced landscaping is provided on page 65. If these are project features included in the project to mitigate visual impacts it should not be up to the local agencies to maintain. It would be helpful for the Design Guidelines to clearly identify/list enhance features to be maintained by the City. Comment #47. Maintenance. Page 94. Provide specific details of standards and nonstandard features for the City to have a clear understanding of their maintenance responsibilities and provide concurrence on specific features we agree to maintain. There is reference to "enhanced features", what is the difference between these features and visual mitigation? If these features are project mitigation features, then it should not be up to the local agency to maintain. Please see PWP/TREP Section revisions to specify that "Landscaping plans should include only species native to Southern California such that the proposed planted areas will be compatible with surrounding natural and manmade areas." See also new PWP/TREP IMs and added to ensure early consultation with the City regarding acceptable design elements and locations well in advance of and during preparation of NOID submittals. See response to comment 31, above. Specific details have not been identified at this time. The future cooperative city maintenance agreement would identify maintenance responsibilities /08/2014 Item #10A Page 30 25

31 Attachment 2 November 6, 2013 Informal Comments 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 31

32 Michael Strong From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Michael Strong Wednesday, November 06, :01 PM Buhr, Gabriel(gCoastal (GabrieI.Buhr(gcoastal.ca.gov); Arturo Jacobo (a rtu rojacobo (gdot.ca.gov) aevans(gdudek.com; 'linda.culp(gsandag.org'; Kipp Hefner; Edward Deane; Scott Vurbeff; Jeff Murphy; Glenn Pruim; Nestor E. Mangohig; Rob Blough; Roy Sapau November 6, 2013 pre-submittal comments Thank you for meeting with City staff on October 29,2013 to go over recent changes to the PWP/TREP. The majority of the City of Encinitas is located within the Coastal Zone; therefore, the City appreciates the opportunity to provide additional comment to SANDAG and Caltrans prior to the PWP/TREP filing with the California Coastal Commission. This "informal" preliminary set of general comments is intended supplement comments made at the October 29,2013 Agency meeting AND to highlight some ofthe remaining issues and areas of interest/concern. Please note that City staff has not had a chance to review the latest iteration of all documents in their entirety. Therefore, it is anticipated that there are more detailed comments to be made as the planning process moves forward and there is more time to provide comment. Environmental Documentation NEPA and CEQAare similar in many aspects, both preparing a joint EIR/EIS, NEPA and CEQA encourages documents to be combined to reduce paperwork. in intent and in the review process that they dictate. When duplication and City of Encinitas staff previously commented that the document's format and content focuses more on satisfying NEPA requirements and less on meeting CEQA's provisions. It has been noted in a Caltrans response letter to the City that: The EIR/EIS has been prepared in accordance with FHWA standards and protocol for environmental documentation. The EIR/EIS is a "project-specific" environmental document. The EIR/EIS states that one oftheprimary differences between NEPA and CEQA is the way significance. is determined. NEPAandCEQA have a shared purpose of identifying impacts and considering them in decision-making. While CEQA requires that environmental documents actually reach "significance" conclusions, NEPAagencies generally don't make significance findings on specific impacts when the proposal is analyzed in an EIS. However, it should be noted thât a Federal Ef5 may be relied on so long as it satisfies the requirements and standards of CEQA. City of Encinitas staff has some concerns and want to ensure that the relevant resource impacts are sufficiently analyzed in the broader document when SANDAG and Caltrans relies on that.analysisin subsequent projects. There should be sufficient amount of detail to adequately apprise the public and decision-makers of the PWP/TREP's effects/impacts. SANDAGand Caltrans should continue to pursue shared goals to incorporate environmental values in decisionmaking, AND to meetthedetailed requirements of both statutes. CEQA and NEPA practices can be aligned by i 27 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 32

33 explaining that CEQA requires significance determinations but NEPA does not; therefore specific significance determinations in the document should be still be made and explained, and provided for under CEQA. The Final EIR/EIS should: 1. Describe each specific impact in common language that is consistent with both NEPA and CEQA practice. 2. Describe the different definitions of significance and different standards for determining significance. 3. Even in the absence of adopted thresholds, CEQA requires an agency to evaluate the factual and scientific data to determine whether an impact may be significant. Therefore, all of the environmental analyses should be supplemented with evaiuations using thresholds that are defined for CEQA purposes. 4. Assuming the document is analyzed at a project-level, localized site-specific analyses should be conducted for impacts. (It is acknowledged that as rail projects are further developed, additional federal consistency review procedures may kick in that warrant relevant studies and materials; however, projects listed in Table 6A-3 as requiring both a federal consistency certification and PWP will not go through a separate consistency certification process.) 5. The majority of mitigation measures throughout the document should clearly demonstrate their effectiveness in ensuring impacts would be substantially lessened..6. If a component of the capital improvementproject(s) is a mitigation feature, it should not be considered an'~ enhanced feature" and so thereby assigning maintenance responsibilities of that feature to the City. 7. Technical reports should be publicly available by appendix, hyperlinked to an internet copy, or by PWP/TREP placement in local libraries and facilities. 8. The incorporated part of referenced documents should be briefly summarized or described. 9. Chapter 6.A.4 ofthe PWP/TREP covers development review procedures for post PWP certification, but the cities role in the process moving forward seems largely excluded. What is the pre-consultation process with cities going to look like, as reflected in Implementation Measure 5.7.2? Pursuant to Coastal Act Sections and 30606, the commission may impose conditions on such development project proposals only if it finds them inconsistent with the certified PWP. While a proposed project may be generally consistent with a project generally described in the PWP, how can a city or a community ensure that certain terms and conditions and standards are adequately reflected in the project? Also, pursuant to Section 13359, within thirty working days ofthe project proponent's filing of the NOID, the Executive Director shall report to the commission the pending development and make. a recommendation regarding consistency. Since the public plays an important role in both the preparation and implementation phases ofthe PWP, there should be some discussion to how SANDAG, Caltrans, and the commission will seekto maximize local participation through the development of "notification interest lists" and by holding local hearings in the region for future NOIDs, CDPs, and PWP amendments. It may also be helpful to determine, upfront in Chapter 6A, what will govern the reconsideration process of a NorD in the event that such reconsideration is needed. 10. To meet PWP long-term phasing requirements, a specified timeline of hydraulic and vegetation monitoring should be required. 11. Addressing and developing a landscaping buffer program seems appropriate at the PWP/TREP level /08/2014 Item #10A Page 33

34 12. It seems that Chapter 3A and Chapter should have addressed in more detail the local gaps and barriers and other findings from the Safe Access to Transit and Coastal Resources (SATCR) study. Overall, the good news is that SATCR analysis revealed that nearly all identified deficiencies would be addressed by PWP/TREP improvements. However, a previous comment by the City was that in general phasing of mitigation features and/or TREP improvements should be coordinated with the construction of the associated bridge, freeway expansion, and/or double-tracking improvements. For example, transit services must be supported by walking and bicycle facilities in order to ensure maximum accessibility. The specific improvementsthat help "accomplish the goals of the SATCR study" should be appropriately phased with the core, rail-related PWP improvements as needed. This is noted on page 3B-16, where "particularly improvements across and parallel to the highway and rail corridor - to be implemented concurrently with the rail projects". But this should be noted throughout the PWP/TREP and reflected in the preliminary phasing schedule. At the LOSSAN corridor, this includes the construction of several grade-separated crossings. Further, the implication of this comment may also relate to the timing of ample parking improvements/supplies at NCTD Coaster stations or other areas near/along the LOSSAN rail line to reduce conflicts between rail passengers and coastal access parking resources on surface streets. By placing a majority of the rait projects in the first phase and promoting increased HOV travel on 1-5, as noted in Chapter 6A, page 6-17, the "phasing plan prioritizes projects that meet the overarching goals of improved multi-modal transportation and coastal access." City staff still has concerns about the timing of access improvements since they should match the increase in transit service expansion. This comment has been made previously. The PWP/TREP notes the planned improvements to increase capacity and rail service in the Mid-term ( ); however, the Leucadia Boulevard grade-separation improvement is identified to be completed in the years (see description on page ). It has been noted in subsequent conversations that there are a range of priorities and phasing factors that will ultimately shape the timing of improvements. However, on Page 6-17, the PWP/TREP notes that "SANDAG and Caltrans must complete all project phases in order- i.e. they must start with the initial-term projects, move to mid-term and then on to long-term projects." While. SANDAG and Caltrans retain sole discretion to determine what order to construct projects within a given phase, there seems to be little discretion to "bump-up" projects from long-term to midterm. City staff still has some concerns relative to the projects that are linked, phased and implemented. Further, if Chapter 6's Transportation Report Packages conveys performance monitoring results that don't meet expectations, there should be some allowances for phasing flexibility since they may help manage solutions. 13. How isthe region going to encourage an'd promote public transit? According to the PWP/TREP, bus rapid transit and commuter rail offer some sort of congestion reprieve in terms of commuter growth and travel behavior. New implementation measures should be added to Chapter 5.2 to address how thetegion is going to promote transit to realize this anticipated commute share (i.e. though transit oriented development, furnishing minimum bus stop amenities, developing public outreach, offering or providingemployerincèntives, etc.). Beyond double-tracking, there are other infrastructure enhancements that are planned for the LOSSAN that provide increased capacity and travel times. The PWP /TREP includes transportation system improvements; andwhile itmay be nearly impossible to predict exactly when ridership rates will increase, thepwp/trepshouldidentify project phasing and implementation priorities for rail improvements and mitigation, "community and resource enhancements that are implemented prior to, or concurrent with, project implementation" (see page 6-3). New implementation measures should be added to Chapter 5.2 that links allows the NCC program tolespond to ridership demand in a measurable way (e.g. mitigation) /08/2014 Item #10A Page 34

35 14. The alpha numeric section sequencing seems off in Chapter 6A. 15. A new implementation measure was added to Chapter 5.3 to provide for the ability to incorporate additional community enhancements, if requested by the local government and in consultation with Caltrans/SANDAG, Coastal Commission, stakeholders and resource and regulatory agencies. This provision for community enhancements is also listed under Chapter One thing that all cities may be interested in is "quiet zone" improvements at all the at grade railroad crossings. This is something that SANDAG and Caltrans should start evaluating, especially since increased rail service will increase the frequency of noise related impacts. Also, the scope of planned improvements indicates that the SANDAG and Caltrans will coordinate with the local cities to create new connections to existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian networks. While many ofthe connection and many of the details are yet to be worked out, connectivity via city sidewalks and bike lanes to some already~planned TREP features may be necessary to facilitate their use (e.g. safe pedestrian access to, and from, Union Street pedestrian highway over-crossing). Design Guidelines 16. The design guidelines should clarify the division between ((enhanced features" and ((typical features" in those instances where a planting is, or plantings are, listed under both designations in the table. LCPA Text Amendment 17. Section statesthat the PWP/TREP projects will be designed such that it will ((enhance" water quality ofthe North Coast Corridor's lagoons. However, one such project, the San Elijo Lagoon Restoration, doesn't exactly enhance water quality. 18. The North Coast Corridor PWPOverlay Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment seems fairly general; however, additional amendments may be necessary in order to make the LCP land Use Plan internally consistent. For example, the general location of each trail in the City is shown on a Recreational Trails Master Plan Map. Pursuant to Policy 4.4 of the Circulation Element, ((any modifications or additions to the Recreational Trails Master Plan or Map that may directly affect coastal zone resources shall require an LCP amendment." The Circulation Element's System Plan also conveys for the need to develop and maintain a planned bikeway system with three types of facilities. Their locations are indicated in Figure 7. (Note that there are other examples.) The majority ofthe City of Encinitas is located within the Coastal Zone; therefore, issues and policies related to the requirements ofthe Coastal Act are also included within the General Plan. Consequently, consistency between the,general Plan/LCP Land Use Plan and other policies is necessary. LCPA Consistency FindingAnalysis 19. The proposed PWP must be demonstrated to be in conformance with the certified LCP for each respective city. The City has previously made project-level specific requests that are necessary to review the PWP/TREP and analyze it for LCP consistency findings - and to ultimately provide sufficient information to thedecision-making body. 20. While there seems to be intent to include all LCP policies, applicable or not, not all Encinitas LCP Land Use Plan policies are listed in this matrix and/or analyzed for consistency or inconsistency. Several ((missing" LCP Land Use Policies warrant a discussion on consistency or inconsistency. 21. Where two or more LCP Land Use Plan policies or provisions conflict with each other, the conflict(s) should be identified and explained as it relates to the consideration of the NCC objectives. This would provide the commission and City with a greater understanding ofthe project, its impacts, and potential /08/2014 Item #10A Page 35

36 policy-level trade-offs. (As an example, Chapter 5.10 ofthe PWP/TREP is a helpful tool in the PWP to understand Coastal Act Policy Conflict Resolution.) Thanks Mike Strong, Associate Planner, City of Encinitas /08/2014 Item #10A Page 36 i I' i i

37 Attachment 3 November 15, 2013 Informal Comments 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 37

38 Michael Strong From: Michael Strong Sent: Friday, November 15, :40 Af\1 To: Buhr, Gabriel( Coastal (GabrieI.Buhr(âcoastal.ca.gov); Arturo Jacobo (arturo.jacobo(âdot.ca.gov); -aevans(âdudek.com; Iinda.culp(âsandag.org; Kipp Hefner; Edward Deane; Scott Vurbeff; Jeff Murphy; Glenn Pruim; Nestor E. Mangohig; Rob Blough; Roy Sapau Subject: November 15, 2013 pre-submittal comments This "informal" correspondence has been drafted to provide additional input to help shape the PWP/TREP as it continues to develop. It is a follow-up to the November 6, , supplementing comments made at the October 29,2013 Agency meeting. It highlights some additional areas of interest/concern, mostly focusing on the actual PWP/TREP. Please note that City staff has not had the chance to review all documentation; and will continue to provide additional comment as the process moves forward, prior to the PWP/TREP filng with the California Coastal Commission. 1. Ongoing lagoon resource planning and restoration is underway. The San Elijo Lagoon Restoration Project is evaluating alternatives to improve the overall quality of the lagoon. Since these restoration efforts will ultimately result in potential hydrodynamic changes to the lagoon, it will be important to understand the extent and evaluate different improvements alternatives that address lagoon and coastal water quality. The PWP /TREP project involves replacement of the San Elijo Lagoon Bridge crossing. Through design modification, bridge length and channel width has been optimized, and the new bridge crossing is designed to optimize the circulation of water. There should be additional study aimed atunderstanding the tidal circulation, exchange dynamics, and estimating the instantaneous and residual fluxes of water, salt and nutrients throughout the lagoon area. One of the inherent benefits ofthe PWP/TREP is the ability to link aspects ofthis overall plan together to ensure that differentproject types proceed in a balanced manner and are coordinated to achieve maximum benefits to coastal resources:. For example, a lagoon's mouth typically serves as a primary mechanism for water renewal and can produce drastic changes in the balance and fluctuation of physical and chemical characteristics. While lagoon bridge replacement can address intra-tidal circulation, the proposed location of the mouth lagoon does not contribute fluxes of water. Through this restoration process, the City of Encinitas has respectfully requested the project team evaluate the Sea Level Rise (SLR) along the shoreline and Coast Hwy 101 then determine how this will impact the Coast Highway, State Parks and the existing Bridge inlet. In Chapter of the PWP/TREP, it has been noted that Caltrans/SANDAG prepared a SLR analysis and a full range of potential mean seallevèls is considered. Chapter anticipates there would be some potential short term flood risk associated to the rail facilities in the 36" and 66" seal level rise with fluvial flood scenario, assuming thatthe selected restoration project alternative does not include an option for a new lagoon inlet. It is noted that given the short duration of the potential flood risk, tis anticipated thatany risk restrictions. to facility operations co.uld be managed via storm monitoring and operational /08/2014 Item #10A Page 38

39 As we know, the Commission continues to be involved in studies of the California coast, coastal hazards and changes in coastal processes. In a California Coastal Commission Draft Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance Public Review Draft, dated October 14, 2013, it is noted that in order to "comply with Coastal Act Section or the equivalent LCP section, projects will need to be planned, located, designed and engineered for the changing water levels and associated impacts that might occur over the life ofthe development. In addition, project planning should anticipate the migration and natural adaptation of coastal resources (beaches, access, wetlands, etc.) due to these future sea-level rise conditions in order to avoid future impacts to those resources from the new development." The goal ofthis publication is to ensure' careful attention is given to minimizing development risk. Therefore, if we are going to make an investment like this, we need to be ready for sea-level rise. Careful review and permittng of these PWP!TREP projects can increase the likelihood that these projects will be able to accommodate future coastal hazards. Chapter contains new Design/Development Strategies or Implementation Measures to cover SLR design. And over the life of the PWP/TREP such examination wil need to continue. 2. The existinglandsçape of the Manchester Interchange is rural in nature, primarily comprised of the lagoon system, coastal upland habitats, etc. Although there have been significant efforts to minimize the visual massing of the retaining walls and proposed DAR, there stil will result in a significant change to the semi~ri:ral character of this area that currently affords wide and favorable views. The use of retaining walls will limit facility encroachment into adjacent areas. Adding a number of retaining structures would introduce additional urban highway components. As identified in previous City comments, City staff is concerned about the project and its resulting "hardened" and "tunnel" landscape appearance. On page , it is noted that overall demand is expected to increase by more than 30 percent in the NCC. Currently there are 700,000 daily users (travelers) per day on the 1-5 freeway (p ), and currently over 95 percent of air commute trips are automobile trips (p.5.1-4). So this is potentially a big "viewing" audience. To the single~occupant driver in northbound travel lanes, the traversing view is predominantly focused inside th.e 1-5 passageway. That is, as a driver you mostly focus on the actual highway corridor - the cars in front and to the side of you, etc.. But the traveler sees what the road is like, sees what the edges are like, as he or she moves or proceeds through it. Of course, there are times when you can take a split-second view when permitting and safe to do so. And there is a multiplier effect in that there are people that feel better about the views for their knowledge of them. Proposed improvements will be consistent with some existinglcp Land Use Policies and be inconsistent with others. City of Encinitas staff would like to continue to be included in future discussions as the PWP evolves to minimize any aesthetic and visual impacts at this particular location. This area serves as a symbolic and visual. invitation to the driver and is extremely important to the City of Encinitas 3. Given the position ofthe Coastal Commission staff to remove the DAR and park and ride proposed for. the Manchester Interchange from the list of specific projects included within the NCC (evident in a letter dated June 2013 to Caltrans), there seems to be a substantial issue remaining that requires ongoing development and coordination between Coastal and Caltrans/SANDAG staff before the document can be considered complete and formally submitted. City of Encinitas staff would like to continue to be included in these conversations as they develop. City of Encinitas staff acknowledges that this has been a fluid process, and the ongoing years of collaboration has been much appreciated /08/2014 Item #10A Page 39

40 4. Chapter notes that station parking improvements would include adding new parking spaces or new parking structures for the Encinitas NCTD station. The PWP /TREP should define, clearly, how and under what circumstances these options and improvements will be decided? Whattriggers the need for station parking improvements (ridership rates or parking lot utilization, etc.)? The 4-year Transportation Report Package in Chapter 6 seems to be a logical program to monitor program objectives, the need for additional features (such as the parking structure) and maintain balanced project delivery. Ideally Chapter should detail that as an appropriate mechanism, define the criteria, and detail what things will be monitored. 5. Chapter previously listed visual resource mitigation elements for highway, rail, and transit. Rail and transit were subsequently deleted. There seems to be a need to develop implementation measures that are specific to rail issues. Regarding coastal visual resources, there is a perceptual connection of sound on sight and hearing a train may alert a greater humanistic consciousness to observe the impact. The project teamshould evaluate the dynamics of "quiet zonesùthroughout the NCC corridor, not just to address the substantial noise impacts anticipated from increased frequency, but to attenuate visual impacts indirectly. Please note that this comment was recently made in a separate City-correspondence (dated November 6,2013) for associated coastal issues in Chapter The locations of two additional roadway grade separations have yet to be determined (on page ). What wif determine their location? Shouldn't these be considered as part of the PWP to develop a more comprehensive vision and approach to transportation related improvements for the sub-region? On page 9 of a Coastal Commission staff letter, dated June 12, 2013, it was asked that these two grade separation improvements be removed because of the lack of detail and specific information related to location and scope. City of Encinitas staff concurs on the need for detail, but would recommend their inclusion for prudent planning purposes for the overall NCC. Regarding potential locations for one of the roadway grade separation crossings, it has been documented on several occasions that at-grade double tracking in the existing corridor in Cardiff was eliminated from the LOSSAN Corridor Improvements EIR (2007) because it would compound barriers and create additional safety issues with pedestrians and vehicle crossings. The Cardiff area seems like a logical initiate this type of study to determine need and evaluate impact scenarios. location to 7. Implementation Measure requires pre~consultation with affected jurisdictions upon request, to occur at the earliest feasible time. The City appreciates the inclusion of this wording and feels it appropriate to add similar inclusivity throughout the PWP/TREP (e.g. primarily in Chapter 6A for NOIDS and Federal consistency submittals). 8. Figures should use similaryear or horizon benchmarks as other supporting evidence in this section (e.g. 2030vs.2040). It is also recommended that the project measure different intervals (short-term along with longterm gain/impacts) to show peak-period travel times, VHT, VMT, ADT, etc. in different temporal. since they wil change over time. relationships 9. At one point, Chapter 5.1 provided little quantitative analysis or estimation ofghg emissions associated with /08/2014 Item #10A Page 40 the operation of the projects included in the plan, in particular the 1-5 expansion. With recent revisions, its' stil difficult to correlate "induced" demand to projections in VMT and VHT, projected transit and HOV use, the number of SOV drivers taken off of the road, and how the 1-5 expansion exactly contributes to the regional effort

41 to reduce GHG. It is noted that efforts to accomplish this latter issue/objective is captured on page , but the fundamental issue remains. 10. Maintenance ofthe suspension bridge should be handled by Caltrans. 11. Related to landscaping improvements, there are some issues that should be considered as the PWP/TREP moves forward. - Will the freeway landscaping look anything like what is there now? - How does edge-of-freeway, native landscaping blend in to the non-native built environment (cluster vs. integrated)? In a November 6, 2013 correspondence, City staff suggested the appropriateness of a comprehensive landscaping buffer program for the PWP/TREP. Ifthis is not possible, then there should be some sort of consolidated process to look at these transitional arèas and planting pockets jointly because subsequent projects may individljalfy develop and mistreat common corridor themes and/or intendments. 12. What will happen if or when a city does not agree to traditional or enhanced features, including but not limited to landscaping and retaining/sound walls? What would the Coastal Commission expect to see in such an event? What would the resolution process look like? 13. Chapter 6a.3 addresses Federal Consistency Review procedures for proposed rail improvements. However, on page 2 of a Coastal Commission letter to Caltrans, dated June 2013, it has been noted that Coastal staff has agreed to process rail projects directly involved in the movement of freight solely through the consistency review process, provided that these projects are included in the PWP/TREP. City of Encinitas staff would like to understand STB exclusions; and the PWP/TREP should clearly annotate and represent simply the threshold for different types of rail projects. Thanks Mike Strong Associate Planner City of Encinitas /08/2014 Item #10A Page 41

42 Attachment 4 North Coast Corridor PWP Overlay Draft LCPA 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 42

43 North Coast Corridor PWP Overlay Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment DRAFT November 2013 CITY OF ENCINITAS LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT. LAND USE PLAN 1. Land Use Maps Amend the City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program - Coastal LanclUse Maps to include the North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation and Resource Enhancén\nt Program (NCC PWP/TREP) Project Overlay Map and Project Overlay Improvements Mapi', " 1.1 North Coast Corridor PWP/TREP Overlay Land.Use;Plan Map' The City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program Land'(~~a~ircul~Element illustrate the Local Coastal Program land use designation for eaç~..property. The land use design-ation denotes the type, density and intensity of development and usesthá~may b~permitted for each p;ópe~y~ consistent with applicable Local Coastal Program policies. In addition 1o~the Icwd.~se designations LnêlUded in the certified Land Use Maps, an overlay is applied'tojhose land area's~ithin t~e City of Encinitas as identified on the NCC PWP/TREP Project OverlaY(Map~(E~ht9~ 1). The Nèc~PWP/TREP Project Overlay provides the applicable standard of review for the NCC\'~WPITREP, which,\it~rroved,"wil authorize the development, operation, and maintenance of specific rairhjghway)transit, bicyclè~pe~e' trian, community and resource enhancement projects d~finedtlerein. The "'goals pf1h~ttcc PWRiJREP are to improve and maintain regional mobility and ac1e'fs to coàstal resourèès"in the Nori~Coast Corridor, to implement a program to protect, restore, and~enhance sensitiv.e coastal ~~ources alorl~l'the North Coast Corridor and to mitigate potential resource impacls~caused b~;implementatiòn of the transportation and community enhancement projects. The.City.;of~ Encinit~s\LocalfCoãs~lirogra~1~Çè Project Overlay Improvements Map (Exhibit 2) ide~tifie;.t~~ spèèifiè~~~, h.ig~~w'.tr~ns~t:~bicy~~i~,;\pede.strian, com.munity a~d. resource enhancement projects.envlêloned to occur~,within th~ Jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Encinitas pursuant to the NCC PWP/TREP~ln..areas within~he NCC"'Project Overlay Map where the Local Coastal Program land lise designation cu~rèntly does not ãiiow for tr~iì1~pòrtation and restoration related uses, these uses would now be identified as añ"'tallowable use)\with tiillportions of the NCC PWP/TREP that are incorporated into the overlay serving as t~'e~,tandard ifj review for all proposed development that is outside of the Coastal Commission's retained jurisdiction/and not handled solely through federal consistency review. If the NCC PWP/TREP is approved, Sìbs~q~ent regulatory reviews shall be processed under the framework and guidance provided within thetnêc PWP/TREP. 2. North Coast Corridor PWP/TREP Overlay Project Components and Land Use Plan Policies 2.1 Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 468, the NCC Project is defined as a 27 -mile long series of projects within the coastal zone that includes improvements to a segment of 1-5 and the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor. The NCC PWP/TREP includes 27-miles of regional mobility, community and resource enhancement projects planned in Northern San Diego County, a portion of which are located within, or partially within, the City of Encinitas ("City") coastal zone. 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 43 37

44 The NCC Public Works Plan ("PWP") is integrated, within a single document, with the NCC Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program ("TREP"), which collectively provide the coastal policy framework under which the City, Coastal Commission, and other affected agencies and interested parties can evaluate overall NCC PWP/TREPbenefits and potential impacts to coastal zone resources, phased implementation, mitigation measures, and feasible alternatives in the context of the City's local coastal program, the California Coastal Act, regional mobility plans and coastal resource enhancement goals. The TREP provides the basis for Coastal Commission federal consistency review and informs conflict resolution to ensure the overall NCC PWP/TREP is consistent with applicable California Coastal Management Program/Coastal Act policies. Chapter'~policies of the Coastal Act provide the standard of review for the federal consistency review1nd, ptisuant to the TREP, rail projects, wil be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determin~wh~ther th~~coastal Commission's review of those projects wil be limited to the federal consistency revi~~~process only. In addition to providing an overall summary Of~C~cts f~).rposes of Coastal Act review, the PWP also provides authorization )O~f~ure de~lopment and gùid~nce for future coastal development permittng of other dev~lopìhent within.x.he NCC Project o)er1ê,yolarea and informs how the Coastal Commission may resolve ~),conflicts~et'neen Coastal A'ct.p~licies. The PWP incorporates projects (including highway proje~tsfr~wjlprqjects other tha~ahose subject to the federal consistency review pr6cèss only, and comnììj~ity and resource enhancement projects) that are both subject to coastar~d~~i~r~~nt'rermit and/or"'lb~cal coastal program requirements and that are located outside the areas ~òf \th~commission's t~tainedèjurisdiction. Following Coastal Commission app~oval..of the PWP~project-~cifip Notice 6f1n(ending Developments (NOIDs) provide the mechanism~tiy. which thè~~oj!c(plòpème.!t'\ Will' bring forward specific projects for Coastal Comniission reviev)\(except for those projèèts..occurring within areas of the Coastal Commissio~i('ò~iginai jurisdiction and ii I:\prOjects CsÙbject to the federal consistency review proce~ 9~). The"'i:mrovelé.wp provides~th~standard of review NOIDs, as.ap~lig:ble.~(:1' for those specific NCC Project 2.2 ~"cc pw~~p,inciudes'pubiic works projects that: 1) will meel the public needs ot an area greate~4.han that incitied in th'è~~jty's certified local coastal program area, and 2) which were not anticipate~.when the lo~el coast~program was certified by the Càlifornia Coastal Commission. The policie~developmentjdesign strategies and implementation measures of the NCC PWP/TREP are intended tö"ffcientl~plan and implement the corridor projects located in the City of Encinitas coastal zone as i'egral eiéments of the NCC Project, all of which are necessary to implement a balanced, integrated,pproach to maintain and improve regional mobilty as well as enhancement and continued use and enjoyment of coastal resources, while addressing potential unavoidable and minimized project impacts and/or conflicts with the coastal resources planning and management policies of the City's local coastal program and California Coastal Act. The policies and implementation measures of the NCC PWP/TREP provide the applicable standard of review for implementation of projects to be reviewed and approved pursuant to the PWP. The policies and design/development strategies of the NCC PWP/TREP wil serve as guidance for Coastal Commission review of rail projects, evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the Coastal Commission's review of those projec wil be limited to the federal consistency review process only, and provides guidance for obtaining federal consistency for those /08/2014 Item #10A Page 44

45 identified rail projects, as applicable. The NCC PWP/TREP will also serve as guidance for Coastal Commission review of projects located within the Coastal Commission's retained jurisdiction pursuant to 30519, which will be subject to separate coastal development permits reviewed by the Coastal Commission. 2.3 The NCC PWPITREP is comprised of various elements including transportation infrastructure improvements as well as community and resource enhancement projects that in their totality would result in significant benefits to the Coastal Zone. The PWP/TREP provides the mechanism to ensure that the various specific project types included within the NCC Project Overlay are implemented in such a manner that maximum benefits to sensitive resources are achieved while impacts are avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent1easible. The following components are included within the NCC Project Overlay. "if" Highway Improvements. The NCC PWP/TREP includes Intérstate Highway 5 improvements that consist of an 8+4 highway design that provideteighi"generai p1irp'ose lanes and four managed lanes along with other associated highv,ay i~p!oveìn\nts, iñ~lu,ding but not limited to, interchanges, direct access ramps, auxiliårý lanes, signage, and otiif~afety and maintenance elements. These improvements would~inìprove public access through the~nçc:,wp/trep area while also enhancing carpool and public trà~sit usåge, and result in de~r~sed vehicle hours traveled and energy consumption.. ~... (; ~~~~,,~~~, Mass Transit Improvementi\~NCC. PWP/TREP incl~des carefully phased improvements to the LOSSAN rail corridor that w~tld rè'ult in the doubl =trackingjof the rail corridor, as well as?ther operational..ndstation i~pro~e~e~ts.;tpe,".~c proji: also includes ~oad and intersection improvements that~would..facilitate the~ntroduction~f enhanced bus service along the Coast Highway. Th'(improve~ènts would 1èsùit in enhanæd mass transit opportunities through the corridor and\ésult in improveti\public acc~s~~hile minirrzing energy consumption. #. or ~. ~J ~7'.... '\A NJn~,~otoriztd...T~ansp..oî;atlon'''anc;~ ~o~!!un~ty Enhanc~ments. The NCC PWP/!REP (e~t~blishes a 27~~!e-long~~~rth C~a~t Corriäor?ikeway, and includes conc~rrent construction of primary segments òf~he bikeway within the 1-5 right-of-way, that would provide a new connected north:-south accessway~or biclclists~ànd pedestrians through the corridor. The NCC PWP/TREP also in ludes other pattí~and tra1linkages and community enhancements designed to provide enhanced ~ònnectivity between all travel modes within the NCC PWP/TREP area, including segments of tiì~?astai eail Trail located within the LOSSAN right-of-way. These improvements would result in enhancet/public access opportunities while at the same time reducing energy consumption and vei lê miles traveled. Restoration Enhancements. The NCC PWP/TREP includes significant restoration enhancement with specific projects located within coastal lagoon systems throughout the NCC Coastal Zone. Specific projects include: A. Habitat establishment, restoration, enhancement and preservation for upland ESHA and wetland resource impacts B. Optimized bridge projects (lagoon bridge lengthening along the 1-5 and LOSSAN rail corridors) designed to improve lagoon system function and values and facilitate large-scale lagoon restoration 3 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 45 39

46 C. Endowment that is intended to increase the capacity for long-term management of the Los Peñasquitos and Batiquitos Lagoons inlet maintenance projects and/or other significant resources in the corridor, and support stewardship of these resources in perpetuity D. Funding for large-scale lagoon restoration programs for San Elijo Lagoon and/or Buena Vista Lagoon This suite of restoration enhancements would result in important biological and hydrological improvements to sensitive coastal resources The NCC PWP/TREP includes detailed procedural and implementation requirements related to the phasing of specific project construction. These linkages~wiûìin the PWP/TREP are intended to ensure that the infrastructure components do not outp~ce!h~ n)~~~sary resource and community enhancement components of the NCC PWP/TREP...Tfie.PWP/TREP.inciudesproject phasing that links the various specific project types encapsuiated~~thin t '~r~cc Project in such a manner to provide maximum benefits for the coastal resoufts wit~in the NCC PWPITREP area while at the sa.me time achieving the transportation goallf& thè\ncè~orrido~these phasing requirements,~.;.. "" relate both to the successful completion of resource enhancement projects as well as demonstrated interconnectivity betwee~ptr~qsportation systems. The PW~ REP Phasing Plan and Implementation Framework is divided int~:short;mid, and long term p'roj~ct phases; and, in order for a specific project t9..be initiated, all ~f..tlie~q1ponents of thé..prior phase must be completed, as defined in th~'t~r/jrep, before th)rs~pject project can be initiated. Project shifts between phases may be allowedn th'èy..~ould not result~n impacts to coastal resources that were not accounted for in this LCP and~ncc PWP/TREP and w~ul9 resûlt in equivalent or greater multimodal and coastal-access improv1tments ~~compared tò'ttii PWPITREP Phasing Plan and.,l...,\ -I #'..~."'r Implementatlon.Framewor~'9Pproved l:y~the Coastal~~o!!mission. Amendments to the NCC PWP to authorizets6ch project shifts are therèforé permitted~ift~ey are in conformance with Section 2.5 of the Nee O~rla\)L \n.v Thejce:pwp.pro~\coPéañd r~source prøection policies, design/development strategies, and (jrtplementatioriñi..e!3sur~s\iiay requir~ijendment by Caltrans, SANOAG and the Coastal Co~~iiission to address mòdified project designs, changes in available project funding and/or phasirì~needs, to in~~rp'orate "'~ewlhigh priority resource enhancement opportunities, and/or to address 'èhanged site ~nditions)an~ resource protection requirements within '''~.,... the NCC Project Overlay areâ~he NCC PWP, as may be amended from time-to-time, shall continue to provide the standard of re~iew for implementation of projects reviewed and approved pursuant to the PWP/TREP. Am~dmeriL,óf..~,I the NCC PWP that would not result in conflcts with the policies contained within the~..cc Project Overlay would not require future amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program. Although the following list is not exhaustive, these changes to the NCC PWP would trigger the nee for an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program: A. The addition of new projects not consistent with NCC Project Overlay Policy 2.3, or that involve significant impacts to coastal resources not considered in the original PWP or not addressed by PWP policies, development/design strategies and implementation measures. B. Alteration of resource protection policies or mitigation ratio standards within the NCC PWP /08/2014 Item #10A Page 46

47 inconsistent with the policies contained within the NCC Project Overlay C. Project shifts between phases that would result in reduced multi-modal performance and coastal access, or without necessary mitigation or coordination between other transportation modes as compared to the PWP/TREP Phasing Plan and Implementation Framework approved by the Coastal Commission, or project shifts that would result in significant unmitigated impacts to coastal resources not considered in the original PWP or not addressed by PWP policies, developmenudesign strategies and implementation measures Rail, highway, bicycle, pedestrian, community and resource enhancement projects, as defined within and permitted by the NCC PWP are permitted uses~'.lands subject to the NCC Project Overlay, and shall be permitted to be constructed, openeá"'bpjàted and maintained for intended public use or benefit pursuant to the PWP and NOID,Jcfs'prò.)ided i~1sections and of the Coastal Act. All projects specifically defined ~itlíin and~rermitted by the NCC PWP, upon approval by the Coastal Commission are herein;j~orpòréted by r~ference. 2.7 Specific rail projects not handled soieiá:g~e~ consi~~review and conceptual highway, bike and pedestrian enhancement~components of the PWP may bè'altered through future. :;..,,,,.v.. PWP amendments and then ultimately authorized by.subsequent NOIDs'l'0ýSANDAG/Caltrans may, in consultation with the City and CoiSal;'''oñ~'rnission, choosl..to submit a coastal development permit applicatio'hjõ~he City for thes~projects, in which case the standard of review wil be the City's certified L~cåÍ è'aš. tãl.pr~~ram. '\~.\...,~ ~ _'\,N 3. North Coast Corridor~PWP/TREP Coastal Resource Protectioii Policies Ár-~~ \/,,~'~ ".v" If the Commission apwóves the NCC PWP all~p.ojects and ~ams as defined within and undertaken ~~~~as~t ;~"~e:v~~:~i)?ali ëo'form to the following resource protection 3.1 é0!lstal Access;and Recrea~ion. 'V M~'ù11 public a~s,.o ~t~i,and inland recreational resources in the North Coast Corridor shall be protected, and where feasibl(, enhanced, consistent with public safety needs and sensitive... 1 ~.. coastal resoûrce protection1policies of the NCC PWP/TREP (prepared by Caltrans/SANDAG and dated XXX). Any' future èmendment of the original PWP shall not decrease the level of public access improvem~~ts.gu~r~nteed by the policies in the NCC PWP/TREP such that the project as a whole would no iong~ôè, on balance, most protective of significant coastal resources. 3.2 Energy Conservation and Emissions Reduction New transportation and associated community and resource enhancement projects in the North Coast Corridor shall seek to minimize increases in energy consumption, vehicle hours traveled and person hours of travel, and be consistent with San Diego County Air Pollution Control District and California Air Resources Board requirements. Where North Coast Corridor development may potentially increase energy consumption or be inconsistent with air pollution requirements, feasible mitigation measures shall be required and implemented consistent with the policies of the NCC PWP/TREP (prepared by Caltrans/SANDAG and dated XXX). Any future amendment of the 5 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 47 41

48 original PWP shall not decrease the energy conservation and emissions reduction improvements guaranteed by the policies in the NCC Corridor PWP/TREP such that the project as a whole would no longer be, on balance, most protective of significant coastal resources. 3.3 Transit and Smart Growth Measures to improve public access to beaches and recreation areas through the use of transit and alternative means of transportation in the North Coast Corridor shall be developed in coordination with the Coastal Commission, City, Caltrans, SANDAG and any other appropriate transit providers, and may include, where determined feasible and consistent with the policies of the NCC PWP/TREP (prepared by Caltrans/SANDAG dated XXX): A. Provision of parking facilities for bicycles, motorcycles ana~transit vehicles at recreation areas and transit stations;.. \.( '" B. Development of park-and-ride or other~staging f~cilities at:points along Interstate Highway Route 5;/,(, ~, C. Construction of road and intersection improvements to Interstâte Highway Route 5 and arterial streets to facilitate bus tfavèi;~ ~ ~ D. Installing or improving bicycle and pedestrià~overpasses and/or,'iundercrossings along State Highway Route -ed the LOSSA~trail~oITidQr where determined feasible; and, E. Providing bicycle anêl,pedestrian facilitie5'~nd routes that connect with public transit centers, thereby 6rootin9'access to a. nd. ~~ C~Oling and other public transit opportunities, \ ')~? Any future amen~e'*whe originallwp,shall"'rìot~ecreáse improvements that support and facilitate mast tr~nsit, oth~\alternative ~eáns of tran'šrortation and smart growth guaranteed by the policies \inti1e:incc PWR/TREP suèh\that the próject as a whole would no longer be, on baia,nc. e, m. o.st Protéctive.. of s.. i"g' ~ifcant coast~t~~s~urces.. /:;"~~, y/. "':",~V. Marine Resources~~ater~ty and Wetlands ~coast cor~transportation.and community enhancement projects shall be sited and designe(l~such that mari~~ resoè:ef are maintained, enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. North Coa~Corridor wèter quality shall be restored by minimizing wastewater discharges, controlling run~ft ipreventi~b depletion of groundwater supplies and substantial intenerence with sunace water. ~lo~\ejlcgu~a~ing wastewater reclamation, maintainin~ natural vegetation b~ffer areas, and minimizl'lg,i'alteration of natural watercourses, where feasible. North Coast Corrdor transportation and community enhancement projects shall be planned and designed to protect and, where feasible, enhance water quality of the North Coast Corridor's lagoons, streams, and smaller watershed drainages which support open water, wetland, and riparian habitats, consistent with the policies of the NCC PWP/TREP (prepared by Caltrans/SANDAG dated XXX). Where otherwise approvable new development may potentially result in negative impacts to open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries, appropriate mitigation measures shall be required and implemented. North Coast Corridor project development in and adjacent to open water, wetland and riparian habitats shall be limited to the uses specified in Sections and of the Coastal Act, as applicable, and/or uses specifically defined within and permitted by the NCC Project Overlay. Any future amendment of the original PWP shall not decrease the level of water quality improvements /08/2014 Item #10A Page 48

49 or protection of wetlands guaranteed by the policies in the NCC PWP/TREP such that the project as a whole would no longer be, on balance, most protective of significant coastal resources. 3.5 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) North Coast Corridor transportation and community enhancement projects shall be sited and designed to ensure that ESHAs are protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and development in areas adjacent to ESHAs shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas, and be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas, consistent with the policies of the NCC PWP/TREP (prepared by Caltrans/SANDAG dated XXX). Where otherwise approvab!~p!lw development may potentially result in negative impacts to ESHAs and other sensitive~coastal~habitats, appropriate mitigation measures shall be required and implemented. No~,htóã'~t,~orrid~1i project development in and adjacent to ESHAs shall be limited to the uses specified, in Se'ètion of the Coastal Act and/or uses specifically defined within and permitted by1he,ncè ~rojett~qverlay. Any future amendment of the original PWP shall not dècrease the lev~1 Óf p~òtecti6~of ESH.Åguaranteed by the policies in." 'il ~ ~.~ the NCC PWP/TREP such that the project as a whole would no longer be, on balance, most 3.6 protective of significantcoastai ~ resourds,~~... \,~. \..~\.. t\ Agricultural Resources./ ~ ~\, North Coast Corridor trans~rt~'~~c'ommunity and ~Th~~ce enhancement projects shall minimize impacts to agricultural resources "èbnsistìk..~ith. the policie"s of th~.e,ncc PWP/TREP (as prepared \:"-.:"~ '-.tl 11 by Caltrans/SANDAG",d~ted XXX). Where ottierwis,e approvabj~'new development may potentially convert agricultfjal 'üsêš~to non-ag~i~i u(al' u'šs,~ep opriate mitigation measures shall be required and/implemented.\\ North Coast Corridor(pJoject development in areas containing significant ág1~ltu!al resourtes shall b'è)limited to 'the uses and circumstances specified in Sect~ns~_~241, 302~~5 c;d_3g2.1~ of the C~~st~1 Act and/or uses specifically defined within and permjtted"öy~he NCC~Pr9ject Overlay.~, Any..future amendment of the original PWP shall not (dé2rease the lèvel..~f pr6tè~.!ion of agrièultural resources guaranteed by the policies in the NCC PW~/TREP "''' that the..project,tas ~", a whole would no longer be, on balance, most protective of signifi(ant coastal resóúrce.. s. ~'... : ",).," '." l,,. '.. ij Archaeological and Paleontological Resources ~ J~ Transportation, c~munity land resource enhancement projects in the North Coast Corridor shall. ti...to 1/.. strive to protect and~mihimize impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources. Where North Coast Corridor projects may potentially adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources, appropriate mitigation measures shall be required and implemented consistent with the policies of the NCC PWP/TREP (as prepared by Caltrans/SANDAG and dated). Any future amendment of the original PWP shall not decrease the level of protection of archaeological and paleontological resources guaranteed by the policies in the NCC PWP/TREP such that the project as a whole would no longer be, on balance, most protective of significant coastal resources. Coastal Visual Resources North Coast Corridor project development shall be sited and designed in a manner that avoids and 7 01/08/2014 Item #10A Page 49 43

50 minimizes negative impacts to visual resources and protects, to the extent feasible, scenic public views to significant coastal resources, including views of the ocean and coastline, coastal lagoons and river valleys, and significant open space areas. North Coast Corridor project development shall be sited and designed to be compatible with existing development and surrounding areas such that potential impacts of grading, operational activities, community enhancement improvements and direct lighting on public views outside of the transportation facilities are limited to the greatest extent feasible. North Coast Corridor project development shall be planned to be consistent with the visual resource protection policies of the NCC PWP/TREP (as prepared by Caltrans/SANDAG and dated XXX). Any future amendment of the original PWP shall not decrease the level of protection of coastal visual resources guaranteed by the policies in the NCC PWP/TREP such that the project asa whole would no longer be, on balance,..hìõst protective of significant coastal resources. (~ "' In scenic public view areas in the North Coast Corri&tJO~y~mprovements, including culverts, retaining walls, bridges or overpasses (..".. shall betdsign'td.and cònstructed,.. to protect public views and avoid or minimize visual impacts anda~.ible~d~ ~ith the rìtural setting as viewed from adjoining public view points, to the exten. Méasibie..... ~.. Conflct Resolution ~ '-" '~ \~~~ The NCC Project Overlay~ulhQrizes developme'hj", that, in isolation, is recognized to be inconsistent with the Chap1er 3'~oliêiês..of the Coastal ~Act. However, denial of the project would result in Coastal Zone effects that~re iaèonsistent with oth'èr~chäpter 3 policies. The project as a R h,. ' ~ J'."".. i,. whole resolves these conflicts in a ~anner tieis.most prot~cífvé of significant coastal resources. Due to, ~he fa~t"!panhe~n..c~ PWPn:RE~~is~s con~~s\ bet~een C.oastal ~ct pol.icie~, and the recognition of t~~ Coastal Äct's conflicrr~soiution pr9c~ss as it pertains to this project in Streets and Highw 'eocje sectio~ \1 03(D(2), c~n!lict resolution, including under Coastal Act section , may be ùsed to r~solve conflict~between coastal resources protection policies with ;-..,,,_~,;. "'.. 'P~ / respectto..the, PWP/TRE)?~.The..çgn!licL(!J~solution provisions relied upon by the Coastal (~~mission i~r~v~twin.g~tht~cc PWP/TRE.P provide support and ratio.nale as to ~hy the ~oastal reso~rce protection~p'olicies of-the NCC Project Overlay could be considered consistent with the coasi'lt' balan~~~spiiévslstencies wih individ ual Chapter 3 policies, " - \. Precedential Effect of Overlay Where there are~:between the policies set forth in the NCC PWP/TREP, as may be amended by Caltrans, SANDAG and the Coastal Commission from time-to-time, and those set forth in any other element of the City's certified Local Coastal Program, General Plan, zoning or any other ordinance, the policies of the NCC Project Overlay and the policies, design/development strategies, and implementation measures of the NCC PWP/TREP shall take precedence for any project and/or use included in the NCC PWP/TREP as approved by the Coastal Commission for the North Coast Corridor except in cases where an amendment to the NCC Project Overlay would be required as previously described above in NCC Overlay Policy /08/2014 Item #10A Page 50